Unpaid Enforced Lunch Break

[donnaanna]

Hi Guys,

I know the regulations that are saying employer has to give paid/unpaid 20 min break for employees working more then 6 hrs. I have a problem of exact oposit nature - my employer wants us to take longer breaks in the middle of the day...

My office opening hours are 9 till 6. We are getting paid for 7.5 hrs a day + 1hr unpaid lunch break, so we work from 9 till 5:30 or from 9:30 till 6.

I aproached my boss to reduce the lenght of my lunch break to 30 min. We do not have facilites to heat up food or prep anything fresh so I bring sandwiches/salades that are quick to eat. I don't want ot be sitting around doing nothing in the middle of the day, I'd be much better off spending that extra 30 min in the moring in the gym or in the evening doing my second job.
They have greanted 30 min lunchbreak one day a week to my coleague -something to do with him having to dropp of children to school that day each week.

My boss seams reluctant to do this in my case, each day of the week.

Do they have a right to demand I use full hour in the middle of the day - they don't pay me for it so surely I can do with that time what I want?

Or if they refuse to shorten my lunch break can I ask them to pay me for the time they want me to be hanging around in the midday?

Any help would be appreciated.

Anna

[EcclesCake]

I would imagine that your employers priority is covering normal business hours hence there preference that the phones/location have adequate staff coverage for their hours of business.

[boxtops]

what would be the purpose to you of reducing your lunch break - so you could come in later, or go home early?

[donnaanna]

Hi Guys,

Thank you for taking time to answer. The hopurs would be coverred as there are two of us douign the same work - now I start at 9:30 and work to 6, Ian starts at 9 and works till 5:30, on Friday I do 9 till 5:30 and he does 10 till 6. Yes, I do want to use that time to either sleep longer and come to work later or leave earlier and get to my second job earlier so I can finish earlier and go home to rest.
:-)
Anna

[EcclesCake]

If your Ts&Cs specify your working hours then that is the deal.

If you think you are being treate unfairly and differently to you colleague you may be able to appeal on those grounds for equal treatment. From what you've said I think that means you would get a lie in once a week. Is it worth the hassle?

[donnaanna]

Hi there :-)
I want it daily, not just once a week. Yes, it does make a difference - I am exhausted doing two jobs (which I have to do since my main job after years of inflation doesn't pay enough to cover bills) and even 30 min more sleep/rest daily makes a difference.
So - going back to my original question - is an unpaid lunch break longer then the 20 min required legaly enforceable by my employer? Do they have any legal reason to refuse to shorten my lunch break to the 20 min they are required to give my by law?
:-)
Anna

[boxtops]

I don't think so - the 20 mins is legally obligatory - it's up to them if they offer you more (in some places it would be a positive bonus). It's not your employer's concern that you have a second job to go to. I don't think they are being unreasonable, but an hour is a long time these days - we've only had 30 minutes for some years.

[boxtops]

Check it out with ACAS, there is a link on their website, they are usually very helpful.

[donnaanna]

Boxtop,
Thank you, yeah, I think that would be next step...
All I can find is about people wanting more break time or employer breaking law by not giving the legal minimum. Which doesn't aply in my case, as I want the minimum and not longer. My emploee hand book state the 7.5 work day but doesn't mention the lunch break leanght or time it should be taken, the hour is a custom in this company...
:-(
Anna

[buildersmate]

The employer is under no obligation to agree to your request; you have no right to demand this, to quote your own phrase. They don't have to have a legal reason to agree to your 'demand'.

Neither do I recommend trying the stunt about 'I get too tired because I've got a second job'.

[donnaanna]

Buildersmate - so they are entitled to demand I waste my time for which they don't pay me, and which is extending the hours I am acctually spending away from home and in the office... And what if they wanted me to take 2 hrs lunch break - or 3 hours?

[factor-fiction]

>so they are entitled to demand I waste my time for which they don't pay me
They are not demanding that you waste your time- whether you spend the time fruitfully, do a bit of extra work or waste it is a matter for you.

It is worth asking , and maybe you should try to make a case or offer an alternative- eg offer to take half an hour less at lunch for five days and finish an hour early one day a week or get one extra day off each month That way both sides have gained something.

The alternative is to find a job with a company that has a shorter lunchbreak.

[Old_Geezer]

I understand your annoyance since the additional time may not be enough to do anything fruitful in. However I suspect the employer states the T&Cs they wish to offer with the job, so it's not so much a case of whether it's legally enforceable, more one of it not being legally barred. I assume the law states a minimum not a maximum.

If this is a new job you agreed to the terms of then sympathy is limited, if it is an enforced change of conditions then it is greater. But either way I think you are in a position where you can only hope you can convince your employer of it being 'fair play' to offer the same to all employees, regardless of family commitments they chose to take on. But at the end of the day I suspect it's a case of, do you want to be in your present employment under the terms offered, or to take your labour elsewhere as the market allows.

[THECORBYLOON]

With regard to Ian who has a shorter break to allow him to drop off wee ones at school, the law gives a right to parents to ask for flexible hours if the child is under age seventeen.

[woofgang]

I know the answer to this issue...not the solution but the thinking behind it. They need the hours covered so they can't let you change your working hours to suit yourself because that would open the doors to allowing everyone to do the same. One colleague doing it once a week is manageable and they could probably allow you to do the same (one day a week) provided it was a different day and provided it was for a "reasonable" reason eg childcare or similar. You may say that your current colleague doesn't want to do this so the hours are covered, but what happens when your work colleague leaves and the new one wants the same deal that you have?

They aren't actually enforcing a lunch break. What they are saying is that your paid hours of work are such and such. Do you have anything you could offer as a bargaining counter? Perhaps work in unsocial hours, covering a different job or the like?

[buildersmate]

You asked a legal question and I gave you a legal answer. The correct legal answer, to the best of my knowledge. I appreciate you don't like it.

Corby went one step further to explain the right of an employee to ask for alternative arrangements to enable family-friendly policies. Just because he's got it, doesn't entitle you to have it - unless your personal circumstances are similar, which they don't seem to be.

Your 2 hour or 3 hour lunch-break scenario would be a change in your T&Cs, so, no, the employer can't just demand that, the same way I advised you that you can't demand a 30 minute break. Such proposed changes would have to be subject to consultation. Perhaps I can recommend taking up reading books in your break for relaxation purposes in the remaining time.

I've had enough trouble in my HR professional life with employees whining to me wanting 'me too' policies applied, demanding 'its not fair'. In general I find a high correlation between such employees and a lower value to the organisation, as assessed by that organisation. However I'm sure that couldn't possibly be true here.