Do I have to take a lunch break?

jasonb

Hi there,

I've done a few searches here about this, but most posts seem to be about people who don't get the breaks they think they deserve, whereas I'm coming from the opposite side.

I start work at about 8:30 and I'm contracted to do 7.5 hours a day.

However, I don't normally take a lunch break. I normally go grab some lunch (which takes all of 5 mins) and eat at my desk. I prefer to do this, as I'm busy during the day, and it means I can leave at around 4, instead of 4:30 if I took a half hour lunch break.

From my understanding of the Working Time act, I'm entitled to a 15 min break after 4.5 hours and 30 mins after 6 hours (that 30 mins would include the earlier 15 min break if I took it). That's fair enough, but does 'entitled' mean I *have* to take it, or does it mean I can choose to take it?

Thanks in advance...

J.

irish_goat

Public or private sector?

tatli_lokma

hmmm, its an awkward one. You are entitled, but not obliged to take your lunch. However, your employer IS obliged to ensure that break periods are given as set out in the working time act. Essentially you are taking your break, you are just taking it at the end of the working day and leaving early. As long as this is with the consent of both you and your employer then I don't see it being a huge issue, although personally as a manager I would be reluctant to encourage this because if at a point down the line things soured the employee could claim that they were refused their lunch or made to work. Also, it sets a precedent and if all employees were to take a short lunch every day to leave early some businesses could not sustain it.

I also get suspicious of people who eat at their desk and claim to never take a break - the reason being I had a colleague who always claimed to do this, yet I knew full well that when she was 'wroking' through lunch in fact she was on the internet and still actually taking a full lunch hour! I'm not saying you are doing this, but as a manager I prefer people to take a break from their desk for at least 15 mins or so, not just so I can monitor the situation but also so that their welfare is being considered.

So IMO, your employer should be enforcing the working time act as they are obliged to do - leaving early should be an exception not the norm. I also find that staff who regularly don't take a proper break tend to be less productive in the afternoon and/or tend to burn out or get stressed or sick more regularly. The breaks are there for a reason.

Mrs OBumble

FWIW, my current contract explicitly says that breaks must be taken.

listermint

If you are trying to get off early or arrive later in lieu of a break. Then no thats not possible.

Breaks must be given - (but not necessarily 'taken')

runawaybishop

jasonb wrote: »

However, I don't normally take a lunch break. I normally go grab some lunch (which takes all of 5 mins) and eat at my desk. I prefer to do this, as I'm busy during the day, and it means I can leave at around 4, instead of 4:30 if I took a half hour lunch break.

You are required to take a 30 min break after 6 hours of work (15 mins after 4.5 hours). You might be happy to work through lunch but your employer would probably in violation of the organisation of working time act if they allowed this officially. It is not uncommon for contracts to stipulate lunch must be taken as a precaution to avoid this.

tatli_lokma wrote: »

Essentially you are taking your break, you are just taking it at the end of the working day and leaving early. As long as this is with the consent of both you and your employer then I don't see it being a huge issue, .

^^ this is illegal.

tatli_lokma

runawaybishop wrote: »

^^ this is illegal.

it is permissible as an occasional occurrance, but not as a regular thing.

"Exceptional circumstances: an employer is exempt from providing these rest periods if this is not possible due to exceptional circumstances or emergency".

So the odd time, if an employee needs to leave early and does not want to or is not able to use an alternative type of leave it is permitted provided both parties are in agreement. Because what constitutes 'exceptional' nor 'emergency' are clearly defined, this is very much a subjective thing.

However in normal circumstances you are correct - giving a break at the end of the day is not considered to be adhering to the act. So if it is a regular occurance rather than an exceptional circumstance then it is illegal.

jasonb

Thanks for all your replies...

Firstly, I work in the Public Sector.

I checked my contract, and it doesn't state that breaks must be taken. It also doesn't state what my working hours are, just that I must do 37.5 per week. I come in to work at 8:30, like some of my colleagues, but some others don't start until 9 or 9:30.

I guess the point I'm making is that I'm contracted to do 7.5 hours a day, but not at a set time (i.e. 9-4:30 for example). So I'm not 'taking my break at the end of the day', I'm just not taking one at all. Any site I've found says that employees are 'entitled' to breaks, but that word does not mean 'must take', at least not how I understand it!

I've been doing this for about 10 years in my company now, and apart from my manager saying once or twice 'you really should take some lunches sometime', it's been fine, and in my mind is an accepted practice. But we're soon going to be getting some sort of Time Management System, including clocking in / out cards, hence my question about whether you *have* to take a break or not.

Thanks...

J.

Eoin

Legislation will take precedence over an employment contract.

jasonb

Eoin wrote: »

Legislation will take precedence over an employment contract.

Fair enough, but I'm still not clear on whether the Legislation says I must take a break, or I'm entitled to a break...

J.

runawaybishop

tatli_lokma wrote: »

it is permissible as an occasional occurrance, but not as a regular thing.

"Exceptional circumstances: an employer is exempt from providing these rest periods if this is not possible due to exceptional circumstances or emergency".

So the odd time, if an employee needs to leave early and does not want to or is not able to use an alternative type of leave it is permitted provided both parties are in agreement. Because what constitutes 'exceptional' nor 'emergency' are clearly defined, this is very much a subjective thing.

However in normal circumstances you are correct - giving a break at the end of the day is not considered to be adhering to the act. So if it is a regular occurance rather than an exceptional circumstance then it is illegal.

They aren't clearly defined, thats why you have to be really careful around them. Once in a blue moon is probably ok, every 3rd day isn't though.

jasonb wrote: »

Fair enough, but I'm still not clear on whether the Legislation says I must take a break, or I'm entitled to a break...

J.

Those 30 mins you are working when you are supposed to be at lunch - they don't count as part of your working hours so you are working 7 hours a day and not 7.5.

jasonb

runawaybishop wrote: »

Those 30 mins you are working when you are supposed to be at lunch - they don't count as part of your working hours so you are working 7 hours a day and not 7.5.

Interesting... Even if my company does not have a defined lunch break (i.e. different people take lunch at different times)? And even though I've been doing this for years without any issues from my Employers, and they've been paying me my full hours?

Thanks...

J.

runawaybishop

jasonb wrote: »

Interesting... Even if my company does not have a defined lunch break (i.e. different people take lunch at different times)? And even though I've been doing this for years without any issues from my Employers, and they've been paying me my full hours?

Thanks...

J.

Sure, legally you need 15 minutes after 4.5 hours, or 30 minutes after 6 hours. Many employers don't mind you working through lunch but technically they could be in a lot of trouble. If they insist you take the 30 minutes you cant really fight them on it.

Honey-ec

jasonb wrote: »

But we're soon going to be getting some sort of Time Management System, including clocking in / out cards, hence my question about whether you *have* to take a break or not.

If it's an electronic system (which it more than likely will be) you'll probably find that it will automatically deduct your lunchbreak from the working day. Ours certainly does.

Meathlass

I second Honey-ec

I'm in the Public sector and we have to take a 30 min break. If we clock out for less than 30 mins the computer automatically calculates as if we took the 30 mins anyway. Also if we don't clock out at all we get penalized additional time (presumably because someone could be gone for hours away from the office).

We also have flexi time like you are describing but we can't just leave the office when we feel like it. Certain people are on certain times and it's all worked out in advance. You'll probably have to conform when your dept starts using the time management system.

noodler

Wouldn't alot of jobs requrie you to be there in the 9-5 hours?

I mean, if you work in Dep of Africulture for example, then you working an extra half hour at lunch may not be of much use to the employer because you won't be around between 4:30-5 when your colleagues are and when Department of Finance, Justice etc are.

Does that make sense?

Honey-ec

noodler wrote: »

Wouldn't alot of jobs requrie you to be there in the 9-5 hours?

Most jobs that operate flexi-time have core hours where all staff have to be present - usually 10am to 4pm, but it varies.