Can an employer attach conditions to unpaid lunch break?

Undervalued

Andy_L said:

I've got to say that an unpaid 1 hour lunch break where you can't leave the premises is a bit of a carp deal - its not like you can do much during the break

Is it possible to have a 30min break & start/leave 30min later?

I am sure we would all agree about that. The question is whether it is lawful? I suspect it is.

Exodi

The anti-employer army is out in full force today it seems.

She's not being asked to work her lunch, please stop the sugestions otherwise.

My step-dad was 'on call' while working at the railway (basically assisting when trains hit animals or people) - wherein he had to keep his mobile phone on loud, and always nearby when he was at home.

He obviously didn't expect to be paid 24 hours a day, every day, just because he kept his mobile on him. Ridiculous. If he was called out to work, he'd obviously expected to get paid for that.

Despite what the OP keeps suggesting, the employer legally is unable to pay her for lunch breaks... and why should they. Give up this suggestion.

I could see a compromise whereby asking if they can take the radio home (if it's as close as the OP says), everything else just seems a gross exaggeration of events. By all means, quit over it if it's such a major deal - I'm sure the employer will have no trouble finding someone a bit less precious about having a radio in their pocket during their lunch break.

MSE forumgoers very often get carried away with this sort of thing and lose sight of reality. Too often does this subforum turn straight into "CONSULT A SOLICITOR AND TAKE THEM TO TRIBUNAL FOR THEFT AND TIME OFF WORK DUE TO EMOTIONAL DAMAGE, they had NO RIGHT to >STEAL< your yoghurt from the fridge!!!!"

Undervalued

Exodi said:

The anti-employer army is out in full force today it seems.

She's not being asked to work her lunch, please stop the sugestions otherwise.

My step-dad was 'on call' while working at the railway (basically assisting when trains hit animals or people) - wherein he had to keep his mobile phone on loud, and always nearby when he was at home.

He obviously didn't expect to be paid 24 hours a day, every day, just because he kept his mobile on him. Ridiculous. If he was called out to work, he'd obviously expected to get paid for that.

Despite what the OP keeps suggesting, the employer legally is unable to pay her for lunch breaks... and why should they. Give up this suggestion.

I could see a compromise whereby asking if they can take the radio home (if it's as close as the OP says), everything else just seems a gross exaggeration of events. By all means, quit over it if it's such a major deal - I'm sure the employer will have no trouble finding someone a bit less precious about having a radio in their pocket during their lunch break.

MSE forumgoers very often get carried away with this sort of thing and lose sight of reality. Too often does this subforum turn straight into "CONSULT A SOLICITOR AND TAKE THEM TO TRIBUNAL FOR THEFT AND TIME OFF WORK DUE TO EMOTIONAL DAMAGE, they had NO RIGHT to >STEAL< your yoghurt from the fridge!!!!"

Exactly! ^^^^^^

Andy_L

Exodi said:

The anti-employer army is out in full force today it seems.

She's not being asked to work her lunch, please stop the sugestions otherwise.

My step-dad was 'on call' while working at the railway (basically assisting when trains hit animals or people) - wherein he had to keep his mobile phone on loud, and always nearby when he was at home.

He obviously didn't expect to be paid 24 hours a day, every day, just because he kept his mobile on him. Ridiculous. If he was called out to work, he'd obviously expected to get paid for that.

When I was on call I was paid an on-call allowance because it restricted what I could do. (eg drink, be more than X minutes from work etc). I'd then get paid for the hours I had to work if any,

Despite what the OP keeps suggesting, the employer legally is unable to pay her for lunch breaks... and why should they. Give up this suggestion.

What piece of legislation stops the employer for giving paid lunch breaks?

Exodi

Andy_L said:
What piece of legislation stops the employer for giving paid lunch breaks?

This was in response to the suggestion that she's 'working' during her breaks, so she should be paid. Obviously if the argument is that these breaks are not breaks and thus should be paid, then the employer is falling foul of the working time regulations.

You could of course change this to 'I want paying for nothing then', but this was not the argument being put across so far in this thread (because it's unlikely to be as popular).

custardy

Exodi said:

Andy_L said:
What piece of legislation stops the employer for giving paid lunch breaks?

This was in response to the suggestion that she's 'working' during her breaks, so she should be paid. Obviously if the argument is that these breaks are not breaks and thus should be paid, then the employer is falling foul of the working time regulations.

You could of course change this to 'I want paying for nothing then', but this was not the argument being put across so far in this thread (because it's unlikely to be as popular).

Or the employer could ensure a robust rota cover for fire marshals on duty.
Then there's no issue for cover (obviously the employers primary concern....) and staff breaks are not impinged. 

Undervalued

custardy said:

Exodi said:

Andy_L said:
What piece of legislation stops the employer for giving paid lunch breaks?

This was in response to the suggestion that she's 'working' during her breaks, so she should be paid. Obviously if the argument is that these breaks are not breaks and thus should be paid, then the employer is falling foul of the working time regulations.

You could of course change this to 'I want paying for nothing then', but this was not the argument being put across so far in this thread (because it's unlikely to be as popular).

Or the employer could ensure a robust rota cover for fire marshals on duty.
Then there's no issue for cover (obviously the employers primary concern....) and staff breaks are not impinged. 

They could but so far they haven't. 

What practical steps do you think the OP's daughter should take to improve the situation?

Threaten to resign if she doesn't get what she wants?

Go home each lunchtime and see how the employer responds?

Or what am I missing?

It seems the union rep isn't going to do anything useful!

Savvy_Sue

To be fair, it's a small minority who tend to think that the employer must be wrong and should be shown the error of their ways ...

One question niggling at me, we were told 'the duty manager' said she had to stay on site. Do all duty managers agree, or are others more relaxed? Was the theatre short staffed that day, or at that time? Some people pop out to buy sandwiches etc, is that acceptable? Be aware if it's suddenly decreed that no-one can leave, she won't be popular! 

I'd encourage the daughter to properly examine the problem from the employer's POV, and see if there's something she could suggest. For example, if the employer says there must be X fire marshalls on site at all times, are there enough? What DOES happen when she's not there? Is this a legal requirement, or 'best practice'? (I know theatres do have some special regulations, e.g. the safety curtain being lowered at certain times.) 

Is there sometimes a mass exodus for lunch, and does it need to be better regulated? Maybe doesn't have to be absolutely formalised, but my team touch base with each other - "you go now and I'll wait till you're back" kind of thing. 

zagubov

Maybe the OP's daughter should approach her union for training to be an additional workplace rep.

They'll soon show her how to stick up for herself.

Been there, done that.

Gavin83

Exodi said:

My step-dad was 'on call' while working at the railway (basically assisting when trains hit animals or people) - wherein he had to keep his mobile phone on loud, and always nearby when he was at home.

He obviously didn't expect to be paid 24 hours a day, every day, just because he kept his mobile on him. Ridiculous. If he was called out to work, he'd obviously expected to get paid for that.

I genuinely don’t understand how this works. If you’re effectively on call 24/7 when’s your downtime? How does it not restrict what you can/can’t do? Are you free to go and get drunk down the pub? Can you even leave the house?

If it literally only applies when you’re at home but you’re free to come and go as you please then it makes a mockery of the whole thing. After all whats to stop you turning your phone off all the time and if questioned just say you were out?

I’ve done on call work before but it was always clear what hours this covered and I was paid for it, admittedly at a reduced rate. In return I had to be readily available and able to work, so no nipping out or getting drunk. I’ve no idea how this would work constantly.

Theres zero chance I’d work for a company that expected me to be constantly available though. I’d never be able to relax.