Rest breaks at work.

kimwp

traceyaj said:

ACG said:

4 hour shifts, legally has no break requirement.
You may feel it is discriminatory, but legally it is fine. 

If he has a medical condition which means he struggles to work 4 hours without a break, it might make things different but the average person should be able to manage a 4 hour shift.

He can manage a 4 hour shift. It is the fact that his full time colleagues get a 10 minute paid break for doing the same thing that we feel is discriminatory.

They're not doing the same thing, they're working for 7.5 hours. Yes, they get a lunch break in the middle, but (not only is it unpaid), it is required for eating. If their work hours were 10:00-18:00, their lunch breaks could potentially be at 11:30, leaving them with 6 hours of working with no break. The same rules are being applied to both parties.

MalMonroe

traceyaj said:

elsien said:

comeandgo said:

Legally the part time ones don’t need a break but the full time ones do.  It is a legal requirement not a choice the employer has made.

They already have the lunch break which covers the legalities. The two extra 10 minute breaks seem to be a voluntary extra.

Thank you elsien. That is the whole point voluntary extra for some staff only. He is 64 years of age, why shouldn't he get the chance to sit with a  warm drink as well.  

This is what Acas say : https://www.acas.org.uk/rest-breaks

If your husband was given paid breaks because of his age that would be discriminatory - and not in his favour. His colleagues would not be pleased - nor should they be. 64 is not ancient. I'm 71 and if I was working between three and a half and four hours per day I would be able to manage without the chance to sit with a warm drink. In fact, I'd be annoyed if I were treated differently simply because of my age. (As it is, I'm self-employed and work from home.)

Your husband could phone Acas to clarify the situation.

traceyaj

Thankfully this has now been resolved using common sense.  He has been advised that the company will allow him a 10 minute paid break per shift. 

General_Grant

kimwp said:

traceyaj said:

ACG said:

4 hour shifts, legally has no break requirement.
You may feel it is discriminatory, but legally it is fine. 

If he has a medical condition which means he struggles to work 4 hours without a break, it might make things different but the average person should be able to manage a 4 hour shift.

He can manage a 4 hour shift. It is the fact that his full time colleagues get a 10 minute paid break for doing the same thing that we feel is discriminatory.

They're not doing the same thing, they're working for 7.5 hours. Yes, they get a lunch break in the middle, but (not only is it unpaid), it is required for eating. If their work hours were 10:00-18:00, their lunch breaks could potentially be at 11:30, leaving them with 6 hours of working with no break. The same rules are being applied to both parties.

The type of work they are doing is what is "doing the same thing" is, presumably, about.

The part-time staff are not being treated the same.  They work 3.5 or 4 hours and do not get a 10-minute paid break.  The full-time staff work, say, 3.5 and 4 hours around their lunch break and get a paid 10-minute break in each of those shift sections.

This is how the part-timers are not being treated equally.  It is to their detriment.  (And the age of the people involved is irrelevant here.)

kimwp

General_Grant said:

kimwp said:

traceyaj said:

ACG said:

4 hour shifts, legally has no break requirement.
You may feel it is discriminatory, but legally it is fine. 

If he has a medical condition which means he struggles to work 4 hours without a break, it might make things different but the average person should be able to manage a 4 hour shift.

He can manage a 4 hour shift. It is the fact that his full time colleagues get a 10 minute paid break for doing the same thing that we feel is discriminatory.

They're not doing the same thing, they're working for 7.5 hours. Yes, they get a lunch break in the middle, but (not only is it unpaid), it is required for eating. If their work hours were 10:00-18:00, their lunch breaks could potentially be at 11:30, leaving them with 6 hours of working with no break. The same rules are being applied to both parties.

The type of work they are doing is what is "doing the same thing" is, presumably, about.

The part-time staff are not being treated the same.  They work 3.5 or 4 hours and do not get a 10-minute paid break.  The full-time staff work, say, 3.5 and 4 hours around their lunch break and get a paid 10-minute break in each of those shift sections.

This is how the part-timers are not being treated equally.  It is to their detriment.  (And the age of the people involved is irrelevant here.)

The part-timer is working a four hour shift. This is less than six hours, therefore no entitlement to a break (morally I think this is unacceptable, but that is the legal entitlement). The full timers are working a 7.5 hour shift, therefore they are entitled to a a break because this exceeds six hours. Therefore they are being treated the same. I explained in my previous post why the lunch break does not get factored into this.

TELLIT01

traceyaj said:

Thankfully this has now been resolved using common sense.  He has been advised that the company will allow him a 10 minute paid break per shift. 

He's very fortunate, and I hope he appreciates that the company had no legal requirement to do it.  The only place I worked where they actually formalised breaks was in the Civil Service.  Even they do not allow staff who only work 4 hours to take a paid break during that time.

General_Grant

kimwp said:

General_Grant said:

kimwp said:

traceyaj said:

ACG said:

4 hour shifts, legally has no break requirement.
You may feel it is discriminatory, but legally it is fine. 

If he has a medical condition which means he struggles to work 4 hours without a break, it might make things different but the average person should be able to manage a 4 hour shift.

He can manage a 4 hour shift. It is the fact that his full time colleagues get a 10 minute paid break for doing the same thing that we feel is discriminatory.

They're not doing the same thing, they're working for 7.5 hours. Yes, they get a lunch break in the middle, but (not only is it unpaid), it is required for eating. If their work hours were 10:00-18:00, their lunch breaks could potentially be at 11:30, leaving them with 6 hours of working with no break. The same rules are being applied to both parties.

The type of work they are doing is what is "doing the same thing" is, presumably, about.

The part-time staff are not being treated the same.  They work 3.5 or 4 hours and do not get a 10-minute paid break.  The full-time staff work, say, 3.5 and 4 hours around their lunch break and get a paid 10-minute break in each of those shift sections.

This is how the part-timers are not being treated equally.  It is to their detriment.  (And the age of the people involved is irrelevant here.)

The part-timer is working a four hour shift. This is less than six hours, therefore no entitlement to a break (morally I think this is unacceptable, but that is the legal entitlement). The full timers are working a 7.5 hour shift, therefore they are entitled to a a break because this exceeds six hours. Therefore they are being treated the same. I explained in my previous post why the lunch break does not get factored into this.

You are not understanding.  The unpaid lunch break that the full-timers have is what meets the statutory entitlement for a minimum 20-minute break.  They get get.

The full-timers were IN ADDITION receiving PAID breaks in the same time frame that the part-timers did not receive a paid break.

It seems that the employer in this situation has realised that they were not treating people equally simply because they were part-timers.

kimwp

General_Grant said:

kimwp said:

General_Grant said:

kimwp said:

traceyaj said:

ACG said:

4 hour shifts, legally has no break requirement.
You may feel it is discriminatory, but legally it is fine. 

If he has a medical condition which means he struggles to work 4 hours without a break, it might make things different but the average person should be able to manage a 4 hour shift.

He can manage a 4 hour shift. It is the fact that his full time colleagues get a 10 minute paid break for doing the same thing that we feel is discriminatory.

They're not doing the same thing, they're working for 7.5 hours. Yes, they get a lunch break in the middle, but (not only is it unpaid), it is required for eating. If their work hours were 10:00-18:00, their lunch breaks could potentially be at 11:30, leaving them with 6 hours of working with no break. The same rules are being applied to both parties.

The type of work they are doing is what is "doing the same thing" is, presumably, about.

The part-time staff are not being treated the same.  They work 3.5 or 4 hours and do not get a 10-minute paid break.  The full-time staff work, say, 3.5 and 4 hours around their lunch break and get a paid 10-minute break in each of those shift sections.

This is how the part-timers are not being treated equally.  It is to their detriment.  (And the age of the people involved is irrelevant here.)

The part-timer is working a four hour shift. This is less than six hours, therefore no entitlement to a break (morally I think this is unacceptable, but that is the legal entitlement). The full timers are working a 7.5 hour shift, therefore they are entitled to a a break because this exceeds six hours. Therefore they are being treated the same. I explained in my previous post why the lunch break does not get factored into this.

You are not understanding.  The unpaid lunch break that the full-timers have is what meets the statutory entitlement for a minimum 20-minute break.  They get get.

The full-timers were IN ADDITION receiving PAID breaks in the same time frame that the part-timers did not receive a paid break.

It seems that the employer in this situation has realised that they were not treating people equally simply because they were part-timers.

Actually I did understand that the PAID breaks were IN ADDITION to lunch, but did not realise that lunch breaks counted for the legal requirement. 

goldieandblackie

And next month he will get his P45 by hand!