Employer doesn't allow employees to take lunch break if doing training

Donal55 wrote: »

You are entitled to breaks. However I take it this company is non union. Ring Nera and find out your entitlements.

Yep. And all laid out in the Organization of Work Act 1997.

The max hours (or expected hours) is up to your employer. There is nothing to stop them from saying your set hours are for example 42.5 hours per week or whatever.

It's up to you to decide what to do, if anything beyond what you've signed up for though, no matter what anyone might tell you otherwise.

This craic of no lunch break is a load of rubbish though. Take your lunch, end of story.

There is a lot of jobs with crap conditions out there, up to you to find out the conditions before accepting the position.
Bar the lunch, which you should get regardless of what else is going on.

sazzermcd94 wrote: »

Hi,

I work for a large international company. I have only been there for a short amount of time but I'm dubious as to the way they operate.

As a number of us are new starts, we are required to complete compulsory training. However, one of the managers has told us, that if we are doing training we are not entitled to take a lunch break. We work a 9 hour day as is, with a half hour unpaid lunch break on top of that.

My question is, is this legal to tell us that we cannot take a lunch break if we are doing training, which is compulsory?

My second question is, as a number of us are university graduates, we must complete the company's 'graduate programme' which is run over a number of years and involves a significant amount of work. This work must all be done in our own time. This brings our 40 hour working week up to about 45-48 hours a week. Is it legal for them to impose a compulsory graduate programme on us, but tell us that it must be done in our own time?

Hopefully someone can help me on figuring out the legalities of how this company operates, as it doesn't seem just to me.

Thanks.

It's legal for them to do it, just not ethical. Many industries or large companies have this nonsense as do many proffesions like law. It's garbage to have you upskill at no cost or expense to the company itself.

Was the programme outlined when you initially applied and interviewed? Granted 4-8 hours isn't massive in the grand scheme of things ( I know trainee lawyers and finance workers who would do double sometimes triple this and it be expected by their employer)

Always worth in cases like this looking longterm. If it's a proffesion known to be a grind early days, but you are working you way up knowing there will be rewards (medicine, law, finance) then might be a small pill to swallow.

Always worth remembering with large multinationals that while there is those that are probably thinking the same as you, there are those that are going to burst their bollox to make it and make an impression.

Your new to a large multinational and already questioning legalities about your break entitlement and some extra workload. And while I agree you probably should be annoyed and question it, be worthwhile thinking iuf this a proffesion where its the norm, should you have known this already before starting, and has a big corp come at you too soon in your career (last one a tricky one to deal with, or sometimes accept)

Whatever about longer hours at the end of the day, take your lunch break.

A lot of employers are aware of this "put the hours in now and you'll be rewarded in the long term" idea that has found itself into the heads of staff members, particularly younger ones. From what I've seen the correlation to this is reasonably ambiguous.

The best time to figure these things out is while you are new. Habits become expectations. You're entitled to your break, and it's important to you, so take it.

P.s. I'm no drum beating lefty trade union member either.

I'm guessing the OP is willing to work the hours they signed up to.
I'm also guessing the OP is willing to work occasional overtime, not overtime as standard. Bear in mind the OP hasn't refused to put in the hours, the employer has refused him/her his own hour of the day.

A place that denies staff a lunch break sounds to me like a place that doesn't particularly care about you advancing at all, and is certainly one I'd be sceptical about progressing through by doing the hours. It sounds to me like a place where the entire division slogs themselves and 20 people fight for 1 promotion.

People need to break their days up, and lunch is as good a time as any to do that. There is more to a job than the work at work. Lunch breaks offer the opportunity for people to engage with colleagues in a less formal, stuffy environment. It breaks stress, re-energises, all sorts. Without it people becomes disengaged, unhappy, and distant. They are good for the individual, the team, and the company. Plus they are entitled to it.

It's a no-brainer.