9.05.2018

Break-ing News

There has been a lot of comment in recent months about changes to rest and meal break entitlements.  Based on those comments, one could be forgiven for thinking the world was ending.  Take one union as an example: they described the changes as nothing less than a “radical attack” on the rights of Kiwi workers.

Stripping away the rhetoric, this is what has happened: as of 6 March 2015, the Employment Relations Act 2000 was amended.  There were a number of changes made, including to rest and meal breaks.  Before this date, the law was prescriptive: employees were entitled to a set number of breaks for specified durations depending on the number of hours worked.

What we have now is more flexibility, as there is no longer any prescribed number or duration of breaks.  Instead, the obligation on an employer is now to provide rest and meal breaks that provide a reasonable opportunity during an employee’s work period for rest, refreshment, and attention to personal matters, and which are appropriate for the duration of an employee’s work period.

In short, this means that breaks are to be taken at the times and for the durations agreed between employer and employee.  If they cannot agree, then an employer may specify reasonable times and durations for breaks that enable it to maintain continuity of service or production.  But note that an employer must provide a reasonable opportunity to negotiate in good faith and agree the timing and duration of breaks before purporting to impose them on employees.

Something that is new is that rest and meal breaks may now be subject to restrictions.  However, the circumstances in which this can occur are limited, as the restrictions must be:

  • reasonable and necessary having regard to the nature of an employee’s work; or
  • reasonable and agreed to by employer and employee (whether in the employment agreement or otherwise).

In addition, any restrictions must relate to the employee being required to continue doing work during what would otherwise be their break (for example, being available to answer a phone call or customer enquiry during a break)

Where breaks cannot reasonably be provided, or where an employer and employee agree not to take breaks, they can be replaced by reasonable compensatory measures.  Examples may include additional payments, allowing later start times, allowing earlier finish times, and granting time off work equivalent to the length of the break.

As always, employers need to be somewhat cautious.  Existing rest and meal break provisions in employment agreements continue to apply unless they are varied by the parties.  So if you have an employee with specified breaks in their agreement, they will be entitled to those breaks unless you agree to vary them.  Some employees will welcome the change and flexibility, others will not.

Above all else, the key thing to note is that, despite these changes, employees do remain entitled to breaks.  The changes have not taken them away completely as some have alleged.  Furthermore, rest breaks remain paid breaks.  Nevertheless, now might be a good time to review your employment agreements in light of the changes.

If you have any questions or want further information about the rest and meal break changes feel free to give us a call.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Alert Level 3; Hi-ho, hi-ho, back to work we go?
In Auckland, we’re excited to be moving to Alert Level 3, if only so we can take a break from cooking every single meal! 
21.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
M&A Pricing Mechanics: Completion Accounts vs Locked Box
A critical period in the timeline of any M&A share transaction is the period between signing the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement and completion.
Climate Change and the Construction Industry: Counting down to a national strategy
The Government is getting closer to the publication of a national strategy for responding to climate change.
21.09.2021 Posted in Climate Change & Construction
Formation of Contract: Black Sea Commodities Ltd v Lermarc Agromond Pte Ltd
The English High Court decision in Black Sea Commodities Ltd v Lermarc Agromond Pte Ltd [2021] EWHC 287 highlights the importance of parties to commodities contracts expressly including an arbitration clause in the contract. This is particularly when the contract is formed by email or instant messaging negotiations.
20.09.2021 Posted in Litigation & Dispute Resolution
August 2021 Lockdown – what financial support is available?
The Government is offering various support schemes to help employees and businesses cope with the 2021 COVID-19 Lockdown.  Given the differing eligibility requirements it is easy to become overwhelmed.
20.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
Clarity on Liquidated Damages following Termination
The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 has clarified the operation of liquidated damages clauses in the event of termination.  The dec...
Is your will in draft form?  High Court refuses to exercise its discretionary power to validate a draft will notwithstanding beneficiaries’ consent
The High Court’s recent decision in Re: An application to validate the will of Olive Ruby Piper [2021] NZHC 534 serves as a valuable reminder to make sure that your estate planning documents are...
16.09.2021 Posted in Family & Trust Wills Estates
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->