Employees not taking a break

Lanacosmo

Free Member
Aug 25, 2015
59
2
Dear All

We have employees scheduled to work from 6.30 am to 2.30 pm. Some of them wish not to take a half an hour break (paid) , they continue working and finish early and clock out at 2 pm rather then wait till 2.30. The break is paid, so if they want leave at 2 pm is it fine to clock out ?

Our contract of employment does state that employee required to take a break, and managers remind about their rights but employees still like to finish earlier and not taking a break. Do we have to insist employees taking breaks and finish by 2.30 according to their rota?

Any views on that?
 

Newchodge

Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,767
    8
    8,038
    Newcastle
    If someone works 6 hours or more they are entitled to a 20 minute minimum break (paid or unpaid). If they work 6.30 to 2.00 they are still entitled, by law, to a 20 minte break.While it is currently their wish to do this, thin about what may happen if an employee gets disgruntled and claims that they have been denied their break. You could then have a problem.

    Separately, working 7.5 hours without any break is a potential health and safety issue, for which you would be liable if any issues arose.

    I would strongly recommend against it.
     
    Upvote 0
    G

    George Owen

    Common sense should prevail in a situation like this. If the employees are happy to work without a break and an early finish is better for their moral, then surely it'd be counter-productive to change their routine, especially if they're working the correct amount of hours anyway.
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,767
    8
    8,038
    Newcastle
    Common sense should prevail in a situation like this. If the employees are happy to work without a break and an early finish is better for their moral, then surely it'd be counter-productive to change their routine, especially if they're working the correct amount of hours anyway.

    Common sense that results in an actionable breach of the law is hardly common sense!
     
    Upvote 0
    Common sense should prevail in a situation like this. If the employees are happy to work without a break and an early finish is better for their moral, then surely it'd be counter-productive to change their routine, especially if they're working the correct amount of hours anyway.

    The forum really should be better than this.
     
    Upvote 0

    Mr D

    Free Member
    Feb 12, 2017
    28,915
    3,627
    Stirling
    Common sense should prevail in a situation like this. If the employees are happy to work without a break and an early finish is better for their moral, then surely it'd be counter-productive to change their routine, especially if they're working the correct amount of hours anyway.

    And if in 5 years time they claim the employer forced them to work without a break for years.... hey look how big an award can they get?
    Usually harder to get into trouble by doing the right thing.

    Common sense says that employees must take a break.
     
    Upvote 0
    D

    Deleted member 307691

    I'm not surprised that this gets a reaction because we are trying to balance the law with the reality of peoples' lives. Many employees have a reason they want to skip the break and get home even though The Working Time regulations stipulate a break in a 6 hour period. The aim is to prevent employers working their employees into the ground and to reduce the risk of accidents and other mistakes that can occur when we are tired and no longer functioning at our best. In some jobs you could lose a limb, in others the risks might be monetary. It's easy to think all will be well until something happens.

    Of course, if you take the H&S first approach you could encounter an employee relations issue. Poorly handled, putting a legal document under their nose and telling them they can't have what they need or want can come across as you being more interested in protecting yourself than considering their needs.

    Sometimes we can be creative and meet everyone's needs.

    The first place to start is always WHY... why do they need or want to get away? Maybe there is another solution. Could they start earlier perhaps? Do they all need to work a full shift? Can you have some start earlier and others start later? If they could have the break and go at 2 what is the impact to the business? Would they consider a pay cut of that 30 minutes or is the money more important than getting away earlier? Could they leave early 2 days (having had a break) and work longer on another 2 days to compensate perhaps?

    Whatever you decide to do, make sure you consider the consequences on safety and on other employees' moral as well as the business impact. You can break the law and make people happy, but it may come back to bite you.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Paul Babiak
    Upvote 0

    TODonnell

    Free Member
    Sep 23, 2011
    1,405
    210
    London (UK)
    Another reason: If the hours are X then everyone should follow the rules. Not doing so creates confusion.

    Another: Anyone who works 5+ hours straight with no break is going to be pretty dull-minded/fatigued at the end of it, so nothing is truly gained for the company.

    Don't tell me the 'hero-worker' won't be zombified some of the time, or taking crafty break-ettes on Youtube, or both.
     
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles