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_100x100 1
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

Bereavement Leave Confirmed for Miscarriages and Stillbirths 
New Zealand has become the second country in the world to pass legislation that provides bereavement leave for mothers and their partners after a miscarriage or stillbirth.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Court of Appeal Overturns Employment Court’s Decision in Tourism Holdings
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Tourism Holdings) is the first decision in which the Employment Court considered section 8(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act). The Court of Appeal has recently overturned this decision.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Guarantees must be in writing and signed to be enforceable
For a guarantee to be enforceable, the requirements set out in section 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 (Act) must be strictly complied with.  This is what the NZSC held in Brougham v Regan. The key i...
19.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice
UK Supreme Court Delivers Decision on Uber Driver Employment Status
The distinction between employee and independent contractor can be complex, particularly where the nature of the business model blurs the lines of standard employment practices.
16.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Holidays Act Overhaul – Taskforce Recommendations
There have been calls for an amendment of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act) for some time.
16.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Unwanted Land Covenants and Easements: Seeking a Court Order
The Supreme Court recently considered an application by Synlait Milk to modify a land covenant restricting the burdened land use to farming, grazing and forestry operation to protect the ability of the benefited land owner to develop a quarry.  This article looks at the circumstances in which the courts might give relief to parties in an application to extinguish or modify a covenant or easement.
15.03.2021 Posted in Property Law
New ICC Arbitration Rules 2021 come into force
The revised International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Rules for 2021 (2021 Rules) have now come into force and apply to all ICC arbitrations begun after 1 January 2021.  While the new Rules...
10.03.2021 Posted in Litigation & Dispute Resolution
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.
-->