do i have to take a 30 minute break for working 6 hours

david....

hello
for the last 3 years i have been working part time in a shop. and since then i have been taking a 15 minute break for the 6 hours i worked. but today i was told by my boss that im not aloud to take a 15 minute break anymore and by law if u work 6 hours a day you have no choice only to take a 30 minute break and if i dont it could get her fined...
i am just wondering is it against the law to take a 1 15 minute break for 6 hours worked????

watna

It's nice to see a complaint in here about a manager wanting to follow the law and asking someone to take a longer break for once!

As far as I remember, when I worked jobs with an hourly wage you get 15 minutes break for 4 hours and then 30 minutes for 6 hours worked and you should really be taking them.

Shelflife

you dont have to take the break , you can inform your employer in writing that you are willing to forgo the half hour break for a 15min break.

wmpdd3

OP, is your question about getting paid / docked?

You break should be paid. You work 6hrs get paid 6 hrs.

Check this out:

http://www.employmentrights.ie/en/media/Workingtimeact.pdf

david....

well the reason im asking the question is because i never got docked for taking a 15 minute break... but now im getting docked a half hour off my wages for taking a 30 minute break

Mrs OBumble

Your employer is required to let you have a 1/2 hour break, and is NOT required to pay you for it.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/e mployment/employment-rights-and-conditions/hours-of-work/rest-periods-and-breaks

For reasons including health-and-safety (stress mgmt), fraud-reduction, and risk of being prosecuted if you later change your mind, many employers insist that you MUST take a break.

thebullkf

JustMary wrote: »

Your employer is required to let you have a 1/2 hour break, and is NOT required to pay you for it.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/e mployment/employment-rights-and-conditions/hours-of-work/rest-periods-and-breaks

For reasons including health-and-safety (stress mgmt), fraud-reduction, and risk of being prosecuted if you later change your mind, many employers insist that you MUST take a break.

dunno about that....


seems the employer is changing the OP'S T&C's.

or at the least trying to change existing practices.

the OP has a contract-an existing one,even if it doesn't exist on paper-its
a verbal contract.

that verbal contract states he/she has been paid for breaks in the past.

therefore => must be paid for future breaks.

ScouseMouse

thebullkf wrote: »

dunno about that....


seems the employer is changing the OP'S T&C's.

or at the least trying to change existing practices.

the OP has a contract-an existing one,even if it doesn't exist on paper-its
a verbal contract.

that verbal contract states he/she has been paid for breaks in the past.

therefore => must be paid for future breaks.

No hes not. An employer cannot be held to any contract that breaks the law. And as for verbal contract - LOL. In the event of a complaint going into the employment rights people - NERA, the employer could show they are abiding by the rules of ---- NERA ----. It would be laughed out the door.

I had something similar with an employment inspector and he told me it was obligitory that it had to happen. That local agreements to the contrary, were not legal unless an application was made for a special order to the Labour Court.

The law says the employee must have a break. If the employee doesnt and has an accident due to "fatigue", the employer may be liable. Basic employment law is outdated and quite often impractical. But it cannot be bypassed by contract or otherwise. (Says the inspector from NERA)

thebullkf

superscouse wrote: »

No hes not. An employer cannot be held to any contract that breaks the law. And as for verbal contract - LOL. In the event of a complaint going into the employment rights people - NERA, the employer could show they are abiding by the rules of ---- NERA ----. It would be laughed out the door.

I had something similar with an employment inspector and he told me it was obligitory that it had to happen. That local agreements to the contrary, were not legal unless an application was made for a special order to the Labour Court.

The law says the employee must have a break. If the employee doesnt and has an accident due to "fatigue", the employer may be liable. Basic employment law is outdated and quite often impractical. But it cannot be bypassed by contract or otherwise. (Says the inspector from NERA)

i'm not saying he must'nt take a break....where did i imply that??


if he was paid for his break in the past,the employer must continue to pay him for his break.

NEW employee's on the other hand.......

---

how very little you know aboutverbal contracts---NOT to be laughed atmy friend.

they do exist.


they do hold the same power as written contracts,


don't LOL at something you obviously aren't qualified to comment on.

{i'm not having a go,just sometimes people take opinions on boards as 'fact'.}

i have seen managers sacked for failing to observe Verbal contracts.

ScouseMouse

thebullkf wrote: »

i'm not saying he must'nt take a break....where did i imply that??


if he was paid for his break in the past,the employer must continue to pay him for his break.

NEW employee's on the other hand.......

---

how very little you know aboutverbal contracts---NOT to be laughed atmy friend.

they do exist.


they do hold the same power as written contracts,


don't LOL at something you obviously aren't qualified to comment on.

{i'm not having a go,just sometimes people take opinions on boards as 'fact'.}

i have seen managers sacked for failing to observe Verbal contracts.

Perhaps, but a contract cannot overule or alter employment legislation. If the employee has a "verbal contract" to be paid for a 15 minute break, this cannot be assumed to also apply to a 30 minute break. How can it?

I

ScouseMouse

Shelflife wrote: »

you dont have to take the break , you can inform your employer in writing that you are willing to forgo the half hour break for a 15min break.

Are you sure?

In my inspection, the paperwork was sent away to head office in Carlow, in it, was local arrangements I had made to satisfy my holiday requirements. I arranged with my part timers to increase their wages by 8% in lieu of taking time off for holidays. We are talking about teens who only work about 5 hours per week. This way they were getting their cash, and I wasnt getting hit for holidays all at once.

Carlow rejected this as it was illegal to make local arrangements in contravention of the legislation. The staff were getting their money every week but this was illegal apparently.

gerrycollins

superscouse wrote: »

Are you sure?

In my inspection, the paperwork was sent away to head office in Carlow, in it, was local arrangements I had made to satisfy my holiday requirements. I arranged with my part timers to increase their wages by 8% in lieu of taking time off for holidays. We are talking about teens who only work about 5 hours per week. This way they were getting their cash, and I wasnt getting hit for holidays all at once.

Carlow rejected this as it was illegal to make local arrangements in contravention of the legislation. The staff were getting their money every week but this was illegal apparently.

payment in lieu of holidays in the retail sector has been "outlawed" for about 4 years now.

gerrycollins

thebullkf wrote: »

i'm not saying he must'nt take a break....where did i imply that??


if he was paid for his break in the past,the employer must continue to pay him for his break.

NEW employee's on the other hand.......

---

how very little you know aboutverbal contracts---NOT to be laughed atmy friend.

they do exist.


they do hold the same power as written contracts,


don't LOL at something you obviously aren't qualified to comment on.

{i'm not having a go,just sometimes people take opinions on boards as 'fact'.}

i have seen managers sacked for failing to observe Verbal contracts.

i had a NERA inspection too and I was told that a 6 hour shift required a min 15 minute break, there was nothing in the JLC to contradict this, which was to be paid for however anymore time given by the employer can be unpaid.

the OP was been paid for their 15 mins break because it is the law yet in this current instance the OP should be paid for 15 mins and unpaid for 15 mins. However changing it now to the 30 mins need clairity the employer should ring NERA to confirm.

when i worked for dunnes for a 6 hr shift they offered a 15 mins break paid and a half hour lunch unpaid additional.

Also I was told by NERA that I must offer the 15 mins break and if the employee chooses not to go then I cant get into trouble. I can only get into trouble when it comes to the one hour break period as it covers a longer shift period.

thebullkf

superscouse wrote: »

Perhaps, but a contract cannot overule or alter employment legislation. If the employee has a "verbal contract" to be paid for a 15 minute break, this cannot be assumed to also apply to a 30 minute break. How can it?

I

the employee cannot be out of pocket .

thebullkf

gerrycollins wrote: »

i had a NERA inspection too and I was told that a 6 hour shift required a min 15 minute break, there was nothing in the JLC to contradict this, which was to be paid for however anymore time given by the employer can be unpaid.

the OP was been paid for their 15 mins break because it is the law yet in this current instance the OP should be paid for 15 mins and unpaid for 15 mins. However changing it now to the 30 mins need clairity the employer should ring NERA to confirm.

when i worked for dunnes for a 6 hr shift they offered a 15 mins break paid and a half hour lunch unpaid additional.

Also I was told by NERA that I must offer the 15 mins break and if the employee chooses not to go then I cant get into trouble. I can only get into trouble when it comes to the one hour break period as it covers a longer shift period.

a 4 hr shift requires a minimum of 15mins paid lunch.

if the law were to change again for instance and employees must
take a 30min break every 4 hrs(unlikely iknow)
then existing employee's must be paid for ALL of that break.

however ,

new employees....

gerrycollins

thebullkf wrote: »

a 4 hr shift requires a minimum of 15mins paid lunch.

if the law were to change again for instance and employees must
take a 30min break every 4 hrs(unlikely iknow)
then existing employee's must be paid for ALL of that break.

however ,

new employees....

the JLC which governs grocery retail states that employers must give a 15 min paid break for between 4 to 6 hours depending on the age of the employee(u18 its 4 hour min over 18 its 4.5 hours)

anything else after that is at the companies discretion no law required. I honestly think that there is a mis representation by the OP employer in understanding this

the understanding i got from NERA was that the employer must define their breaks in their contract/staff notice that they have with staff however the min requirements as per the JLC must be met.

I used to have staff on this similar shift 6 hours and was told by NERA that it required a min 15 mins paid break anything else after that could be unpaid but was at my discretion to give

i believe there is a little misunderstanding by the employer/manager in this instance. the jlc outweight everything even verbal agreements and I know what your saying about verbal agreements been the rule etc

thebullkf

gerrycollins wrote: »

the JLC which governs grocery retail states that employers must give a 15 min paid break for between 4 to 6 hours depending on the age of the employee(u18 its 4 hour min over 18 its 4.5 hours)

anything else after that is at the companies discretion no law required. I honestly think that there is a mis representation by the OP employer in understanding this

the understanding i got from NERA was that the employer must define their breaks in their contract/staff notice that they have with staff however the min requirements as per the JLC must be met.

I used to have staff on this similar shift 6 hours and was told by NERA that it required a min 15 mins paid break anything else after that could be unpaid but was at my discretion to give

i believe there is a little misunderstanding by the employer/manager in this instance. the jlc outweight everything even verbal agreements and I know what your saying about verbal agreements been the rule etc

excellent post.;)



except for this part ^^.


JLC rates are a minimum only.

if you have/engaged in an existing agreement that is more beneficial then that supercedes the JLC.

stupidusername

You don't have to get paid for the half hour break on a 6 hour shift, and having been paid for a 15 minute break previously does not entitle you to be paid for the half hour break.

Please don't listen to the advice given here, I don't mean to be horrible to other posters but I know that some advice given is wrong. Go talk to citizens advice about it. Ring them up instead of relying on the website, as it is a lot clearer when you can explain your circumstances.

thebullkf

stupidusername wrote: »

You don't have to get paid for the half hour break on a 6 hour shift, and having been paid for a 15 minute break previously does not entitle you to be paid for the half hour break.

Please don't listen to the advice given here, I don't mean to be horrible to other posters but I know that some advice given is wrong. Go talk to citizens advice about it. Ring them up instead of relying on the website, as it is a lot clearer when you can explain your circumstances.

my advice is not wrong.


i have proof.

please don't so vague-point out the other advice that you think is incorrect.