Law-Forums.org

[orlondo100]

http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/512.html

The above code states:

An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee.

Does this mean that an employer cannot require that an employee take a lunch unless their shift - upon its completion - is at least a 6 hours?

I'm reading it two different ways, but I want to be sure before I take action.

I'm not asking for an opinion. I'm asking for an educated, experienced answer.
Please. Thank You.

[fenwick]

If you work no MORE than 6 hours, no meal break is required if both agree.

If you work MORE than 6 hours, than you are entitled to a meal break after working no more than 5 of those 8 hours.

Then again, the California Supreme Court just handed down a ruling that said that it is not up to the employers to make sure that the employees take meal breaks, it is the employees responsibility to take their meal breaks. That ruling came down literally today, April 12, 2012.

In other words, if you work MORE than 6 hours in the shift, just read this part:

"An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes,"

If you work a total of 6 hours in the shift, read this part:

"if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee."

[winwood]

The employer CAN require you to take a break. Notice it says "mutual consent of both employer and employee." Mutual means both.

If the employer wants you to take a break, you should take it. People need to eat. You need to eat.