Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breaks and Lunch California

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TimCorey
    replied
    Any follow-up - if employees don't want to take lunch?

    Hello,

    I found this discussion when looking for an answer on Google.

    In the most recent message, it was posted that the Supreme Court was about to rule on what to do if an employee doesn't want to take their lunch break. Knowing the angle CA usually takes, I'm guessing employers will have to make their employees take lunch even if they don't want to...

    But has anyone heard back on if there has been a ruling, and what it was?

    Thanks,
    Tim

    Leave a comment:


  • BSPCPA
    replied
    Jennifer Katz: Next question - We do allow them both lunch and break time but if they don't want to take them and continue to work is that a problem?

    That is a very unsettled matter of law (especially regarding meal breaks) and will soon be decided by the CA Supreme Court. Pending the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter, most California labor law practitioners (including myself) advise that employers force employees to take their meal/rest breaks.

    Jennifer Katz: Another question - I am not sure how it's determined who is an exempt employee or not....

    I suspect you would benefit greatly from a Wage & Hour, labor law class put on by the CA Bar, CA CPA Society, or Chamber of Commerce. In the meantime, you should review this http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_OvertimeExemptions.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • Jennifer Katz
    replied
    Further Clarification

    We have a very small company so forgive my ignorance on these matters...I had asked about lunch and break time for our employees and whether or not it's mandatory. The response overall seems like yes, it is. Next question is we do allow them both lunch and break time but if they don't want to take it then they continue to work; is that a problem? Other question; I am not sure how it's determined who is an exempt employee or not...does that have to do with who gets paid for overtime or not? In our case that's salaried do not get paid OT, and hourly do. Anyway, thanks for all of the help! Jennifer

    Leave a comment:


  • Pattymd
    replied
    Actually, most exempt employees don't have employment contracts. Anywhere. I've been in payroll over 30 years and worked in California for the first 20+ years of my career.

    Leave a comment:


  • jekyl6573
    replied
    It is not required to provide exempt employees in the state of California with a lunch. Most exempt employees have some sort of contract that outlines their pay. Most exempts are considered professionals and can decide for themselves whether lunch is necessary or not. They use the word "exempt" for a reason.

    BSPCPA

    wow man decaf it up

    Leave a comment:


  • Pattymd
    replied
    So, the DLSE Enforcement Manual cannot be relied upon by DLSE investigators. And the IWCs cannot be relied upon by employers because, well, hey, they aren't really laws anyway.

    Fine system you have going there.
    Last edited by Pattymd; 10-21-2008, 12:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BSPCPA
    replied
    Patty, I realize you do not practice in California and may not have a full aprpeciation of our laws and the importance (and lack of importance of IWC edicts). Allow me to explain -- our appellate/supreme courts have categorized the IWC as an agency with nothing more than "quasi-legislative" power. On more than one occassion, the IWC has been chastised for adopting Wage Orders that go beyond the simple, plain meaning of the labor code.

    Point Being: That which the Labor Code provides (ALL employees - exempt and non-exempt shall be provided with an uninterrupted, 30-minute, duty free meal period) can not be taken away by the IWC. As a side note, the IWC was recently blasted by our Courts for adopting language in its wage orders that meal periods did not have to be provided to union employees if the union/company agreed they would be waived. The Courts were quick to point out the Labor Code (the law) provides no such exemption, and the IWC was not empowered to create one.

    Final Comments: I jumped onto this post because of what clearly was bad advice given to Jennifer Katz (the OP). As I posted above, if an employer fails to provide a California exempt employee with a 30 minute, duty-free meal period when that employee works more than 5 hours, that employer is exposing itself to both criminal and civil penalties. Just a word to the wise (and not so wise).

    Leave a comment:


  • Pattymd
    replied
    The IWC, at least for general industries, also specifically states that meal breaks and rest periods are not required for exempt employees. My version of Acrobat reader does not allow me to copy-and-paste the sections, but see #1 here under Applicability of Order
    Provisions of Section 3 through 12 shall not apply to persons employed in administrative, executive, or professional capacities.
    http://www.dir.ca.gov/IWC/IWCArticle4.pdf

    Since Meal Periods are addressed by Section 11 and Rest Periods by Section 12, the IWC appears pretty clear to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • BSPCPA
    replied
    DAW: Would it be also be true to say that the answer is an unequivocal, YES - that there is no legal penalty what-so-ever to employers who fail to follow the lunch law for Exempt Salaried employees?

    That would be an incorrect statement!

    Employers who violate the express mandate of Labor Code 512 (e.g., that ALL employees, exempt and non-exempt be provided a 30-minute, duty-free, meal periods) expose themselves to criminal penalties under Labor Code 553 and civil penalties under the PAGA statute - Labor Code 2698 et seq.

    Bottom Line: While I am always happy to educate you on the law, DAW, the main point of my post was to alert Jennifer Katz (the OP) that the law expressly mandates that employers provide employees (both exempt and non-exempt) with 30-minute, duty-free meal breaks when they work more than 5 hours a day.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAW
    replied
    Would it be also be true to say that the answer is an unequivocal, YES - that there is no legal penalty what-so-ever to employers who fail to follow the lunch law for Exempt Salaried employees?

    And if you disagree with this statement, could you please supply actual support for your theory? Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • BSPCPA
    replied
    DAW: You need to read the question the OP asked more carefully.

    The OP specifically asked, "Let's say they work an 8 hour day; are we required to give them a 30 minute lunch break?" The answer is an unequivocal, YES - regardless of whether the employee is exempt or non-exempt.

    Note: The payment of LC 226.7 premium pay is an entirely different matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAW
    replied
    Originally posted by BSPCPA View Post
    DAW: Exempt employees however tend to be generally not covered by the CA lunch break rules

    The labor code mandates that ALL employees (exempt and non exempt) be provided a 30-minute, duty-free, meal break when working more than 5 hours a day.
    True. Of course as Barry knows this only part of story. The rest courtesy of the CA-DLSE manual is as follows:

    45.2.2 Labor Code § 512, requiring an employer to provide a meal period, does not exclude any class of employee. Consequently, it would appear that exempt employees are also entitled to meal periods in accordance with that section. However, the premium pay provided in Labor Code § 226.7 for failure to provide the meal period only applies if the meal period is required by the applicable IWC Order. The IWC Orders specifically excluded exempt employees from the coverage of the IWC meal period requirement. Thus, no premium pay may be imposed on an employer who fails to provide a meal period to an exempt employee.

    Leave a comment:


  • workerslex
    replied
    Originally posted by Jennifer Katz View Post
    Does that time come out of their 8 hours? In other words are they ending up then really working 7 hours and getting paid for 8? Or do we just make the breaks available and deduct that time from the hourly workers wages?
    Unless your employee is relieved of all duty during a 30-minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered "on duty" meal period and counted as time worked - thus must be paid.

    ----------------------------------
    ]
    Last edited by cbg; 10-18-2008, 06:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • workerslex
    replied
    Originally posted by Jennifer Katz View Post
    Let's say they work an 8 hour day; are we required to give them 2 15 minute breaks and a 30 minute lunch break?
    All employers who employ persons in California for a work period of more than 5 hours must give them a meal period of at least 30 minutes. However, if the day's work can be completed for not more than 6 hours, you and your employee may both agree to do away with meal period in a written agreement.

    ----------------------------------
    Last edited by cbg; 10-18-2008, 06:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BSPCPA
    replied
    DAW: Exempt employees however tend to be generally not covered by the CA lunch break rules

    The labor code mandates that ALL employees (exempt and non exempt) be provided a 30-minute, duty-free, meal break when working more than 5 hours a day.

    Leave a comment:

The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
Working...
X