Calif high court rules in lunch break labor case

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Calif high court rules in lunch break labor case

By JASON DEAREN, Associated Press

Thursday, April 12, 2012

(04-12) 10:23 PDT San Francisco (AP) --

The California Supreme Court said Thursday that employers are under no obligation to ensure that workers take legally mandated lunch and rest breaks.

The ruling came after workers' attorneys argued that abuses are routine and widespread when companies aren't required to issue direct orders to take breaks.

But the high court sided with business when it ruled that requiring companies to order breaks is unmanageable and that those decisions should be left to workers.

The case was initially filed nine years ago against Brinker International, the parent company of Chili's and other eateries, by restaurant workers complaining of missed breaks in violation of California labor law.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/04/12/national/a012419D99.DTL

Source: Reuters

California court allows part of lawsuit against Brinker

By Dan Levine and Terry Baynes

SAN FRANCISCO | Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:20pm EDT

(Reuters) - The California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that part of a class action lawsuit can proceed against Brinker International Inc., in a closely watched case over employee breaks in the nation's most populous state.

The court also ruled that employers are obliged to relieve employees of all duty during meal breaks, but need not ensure that no work is done.

(Reporting By Dan Levine; editing by M.D. Golan)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/12/us-brinker-california-idUSBRE83B15J20120412

[PatSeg]

1. What the hell?

We keep moving backwards at an accelerated rate.

[Lint Head]

2. This to me is not a total loss. It would be unmanageable to monitor every worker taking a break.

Usually in this situation a worker would log out and there would be a record. There would be not need for an employer to monitor.
A worker still has the option to gather evidence that the break is not being given. Taking a lunch break and breaks in general is the law.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Absent a union contract or ...

as in this case, a State law, lunch and other breaks are not the law.

But that said, it surprises me that this matter is coming out of California.

[Hestia]

10. Exactly - here, there is no law stating that anyone gets a break period, and the employer can

actually work you 8 hours straight. The glories of a right to work state. Generally, only union employees get a mandated lunch and break periods.

[Politicalboi]

3. How many people need to

Pass out for lack of food before companies get sued over this decision? I know I need to eat during an 8 hour day. Some people can't concentrate when hungry. Is lunch going to be looked at as a disability? This is crazy shit.

[LiberalFighter]

4. How the hell is it unmanageable for mgmt to make sure workers take their breaks.

Either make sure there is an employee that gives the worker a break and keep the schedule or the employee takes their breaks when they should take them. Mgmt has that responsibility.

The judges are clueless.

[musiclawyer]

5. This is crappy legal reporting

The lawsuit proceeds. That is good. That employers are not responsible for breaks is just a small part of the puzzle. And arguably it's a bad thing because workers will work through breaks thinking they are building up overtime, but then the overtime is not approved, so they worked for nothing. There is some personal responsibility involved.

[SoCalDem]

7. Personally, I always hated "lunch". If you work weird shifts, it can really suck

For instance.

I clocked in at 4:45 AM and, since I did bookkeeping, I hated to have to stop right in the middle of something to "take lunch" especially at 9 AM, since I left when I was done with the books..usually by 11:00 or so. Whenever I could get away with it, I worked straight thru and went home an hour earlier so I could nap a bit before having to pick up the kids after school at 2:30PM..

A mandatory twiddle my thumbs & watch the clock hour, right in the middle of my work was annoying . There was no pleasant place nearby to take a break, and I basically wasted an hour if I was forced to take the lunch..

[KamaAina]

8. Well, you wasted a half hour, anyway

the minimum mandated lunch break in CA is 30 minutes, not an hour.

[SoCalDem]

9. company policy was 1 hr..but I usually skated

I had a 40 minute drive home & always claimed "safety" since the faster I worked & got home the less likely I was to fall asleep behind the wheel