9.07.2019

Give me a break… Managing Rest and Meal Breaks

From 6 May 2019, the statutory regime around rest and meal breaks in the Employment Relations Act (Act) has returned to a prescriptive approach.  The changes replace the more flexible provisions that had been introduced by the previous National-led government in 2014.

The statutory changes apply to all employers, with limited exceptions for national security (GCSB and SIS) and essential services (which include water supply, energy production/supply, certain port services, certain air transport and port services, prisons, hospitals amongst others).

From 6 May, the duration of an employee’s work period will determine the minimum entitlement to rest and meal breaks. For example, if an employee’s work period is more than 6 hours but not more than 8 hours, the employee is entitled to two 10-minute paid rest breaks, and one 30-minute unpaid meal break. 

While most employers will accept that there are potential productivity, safety and morale benefits  in ensuring employees have sufficient time to rest and refresh during a work period, for manufacturing businesses (and other sectors), the issue of break timing, however, could be a headache. It may not always be possible to have all staff ‘down tools’ and cease production at the same time. The Act recognises this issue.

The starting point is that the timing of the rest and meal breaks should be agreed where possible between employer and employee in good faith. If there is no agreement, the timing is fixed by the Act, generally at a mid-point during the relevant work period.  There is some leeway for an employer in the absence of agreement: the provisions allow for the timing to be moderated by what is reasonable and practicable in the employer’s business.

If this is the case for your business, take note: the greater the departure from the timing of the breaks from a mid-point, the greater the need for justification to show that it was not reasonable and practicable to take the break at, or closer to, the times set in the Act.  The provision does not allow for an employer to unilaterally set break times without consultation or without sufficient justification.

Another common question that we’ve regularly encountered is whether or not the rest and meal breaks can be bundled together (i.e. for a 7.5 hour work period, the employee is entitled to two paid 10-minute rest breaks, and one unpaid 30 minute meal break, but instead the employee requests a 50-minute break during the work period). So long as there is agreement, this appears to be permitted by the legislation.

How do employers demonstrate compliance with these changes?

Where there is agreement, this should be documented. Usually, this would be in the employee’s employment agreement, but could be in a separate agreement, roster or break notebook.

The legislation does not explicitly require that break times be recorded, but we consider that this would be prudent for compliance purposes.  

In the worst case scenario, the Act does provide for penalties for employers who do not comply with the new prescriptive regime. If you have not already, we suggest this is an opportune time to update your employment agreements.

If you have any questions around breaks, or anything employment related, please pick up the phone and give our Employment Law Team a call: +64 9 375 8700 or email Sam.Houliston@heskethhenry.co.nz

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.
-->