Employer Has Changed Our 'break' Time from 30 Mins Unpaid to 60 Mins Unpaid, Is This Legal?

[Deactivated] on 25/04/2021 - 21:28
Last edited 26/04/2021 - 09:58 by 1 other user

Recently started a new job about 3 months ago, with a company that took won a new contracting gig in South Australia.
When I was offered the job and accepted, any shift that was scheduled for over 5 hours we have to take an unpaid 30 min break- we've had this in place for the last 3 months.

They've just announced that we must now take a 60 minute unpaid break if our shifts are over 6 hours.
We are of course, pretty upset by this as it adds up over the year and can't quite understand if they are allowed to do this.

Does any one know if this is legally possible in Australia? To just change our break and significantly impact our estimated income? We are on permanent part time and guaranteed 20 hours a week.

Thanks for any input/ help!

Education & Work

Related Stores

Fair Work Ombusman
Fair Work Ombusman

Comments

  • Hybroid on 25/04/2021 - 21:30
    +6

    What does your contract say? Unpaid lunch break is clearly stipulated in mine, check yours.

  • jjjaar on 25/04/2021 - 21:37
    +17

    Are you adding 30 mins to your shift and still “working” the same number of hours?

    i.e. if previously it was a 6 hour shift you’d have been there for 6.5 hours, with a 30 min break. Now for a 6 hour shift you’re there for 7 hours with a 60 min break.

    Also - do you have a union?

  • SnoozeAndLose on 25/04/2021 - 21:48
    +38

    The law say minimum 30 mins break for every 5 hours of work, not for maximum.

    It is up to you to work or quit

    • Logical on 26/04/2021 - 21:20
      +8

      quitting is easier, vote for that

      • hopper on 28/04/2021 - 08:45
        +1

        username checks out

  • pao2x on 25/04/2021 - 22:10
    +4

    It does not affect your income, it only affects the time you have to be physically at work (extra 30 mins at the end of the day in the workplace but that extra 30 in a meal break). Check your contract award or union

    • Lastchancetosee on 26/04/2021 - 12:28
      +31

      True, but it is an imposition on your time, and time is money.

      • Logical on 26/04/2021 - 21:21
        +2

        except where a good break allows a worker to recharge/refresh and perform a lot better after it

        • Krankite on 27/04/2021 - 08:02
          +1

          It is still an imposition on your time, just a justifiable one.

  • JimmyF on 25/04/2021 - 22:11
    +15

    60 minute unpaid break if our shifts are over 6 hours.
    To just change our break and significantly impact our estimated income?

    You're still getting paid for 6 hours, but instead of being a shift of 6.5 hours, you now have a shift for 7 hours.

    Your income hasn't changed, you're not working for 'free', either way you are paid for 6 hours.

    Take the break, eat, rest, sleep in the car, watch some youtube on your phone.

    • WatchNerd on 25/04/2021 - 22:26
      +22

      Or look for bargains to post on here.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2021 - 22:39
      +21

      I must have explained this poorly.
      For an 8 hour shift I was getting paid for 7.5 hours.
      I am now getting paid 7 hours and must take a 60 minute break.

      • Settero on 25/04/2021 - 22:46
        -5

        you need to narrow down your question.

        is it a matter of time you are at work
        is it a matter of the reduce working hours
        is it a matter of reduced pay.

        but ultimately , your employer is allowed to change your work agreement , you are entitled to decline , and then things get fun.

      • garetz on 25/04/2021 - 22:46
        +14

        Check your contract, sounds fishy, they cant just change your work hours cause they want to usually.

        • Ny-ax on 28/04/2021 - 11:41

          100% you can change work hours on a whim

        • garetz on 25/04/2021 - 22:51
          +10

          Its standard if you started the job at that shift, not if you didn't.

      • Quantumcat on 26/04/2021 - 15:37

        Why don't you take your 60 minute break at the end of your shift and just go home?

        • pegaxs on 26/04/2021 - 18:28
          +2

          Get to work 1 hour late and work through…

      • Krankite on 27/04/2021 - 08:04
        +10

        In that case it is a reduction in hours, a more serious issue than a change to break time. Speak to the relevant union of fair work if you are not happy with the reduction in hours.

  • Davo1111 on 25/04/2021 - 22:19

    read your contract, but probably legal.

    Anyway, you dont work during that "break", so go away for 1hr.

  • serpserpserp on 25/04/2021 - 22:32
    +41

    I feel OP. I'd hate to be contracted to essential "be" at work for 30 minutes longer than previously asked. I'd rather just smash out the day and leave instead of wasting time.

    • fantombloo on 25/04/2021 - 23:14

      Agreed. But depending on the type of job the extra 30min might provide benefits not yet realised, such as a really good rest that leaves you feeling better at the end of the day

      • Kangal on 26/04/2021 - 02:34
        +3

        Yeah, if its just doing some light accounting for a small business that's one thing.
        If its doing neurosurgery in a large hospital, that's completely different.

        • teddyp on 26/04/2021 - 23:51
          +9

          Ha implying that you get a lunch break doing neurosurgery

          • BadBreath on 27/04/2021 - 22:54
            +5

            @teddyp: LOL - Put that brain on ice - I'm having a break.

      • serpserpserp on 28/04/2021 - 09:16

        Don't make it compulsory. Everyone is different, give them the option to manage their day.

  • freefall101 on 25/04/2021 - 22:57
    +7

    Ask if you can take a half hour break and leave half an hour early. So long as it’s 60 minutes or less it seems pretty standard.

    If you were being given less than your 20 hours there’d be an issue, but it could well be a whs issue to get a break, take a piss, etc. places I’ve worked with 30 minutes people are often late back when only given 30 minutes.

    • waterbottled on 26/04/2021 - 10:24
      +1

      Yeah that's my approach. just take 30 mins break and leave early. But that depends on what kind of job OP has.

    • ThithLord on 27/04/2021 - 08:39
      +3

      If they're the kind of employer to enforce an additional half-hour unpaid break, they'd be the kind to not look favourably on taking only half an hour and leaving early. Completely defeats the purpose.

  • Puglife on 25/04/2021 - 22:59
    +3

    If I had the option to take lunch or finish early, I would always choose to finish early. That said, I don't eat at work.
    I would be annoyed if they extended my lunch break…but is it legal? Yes

    • Tunblor on 26/04/2021 - 20:29
      +1

      You don't eat at work?

      • truetypezk on 26/04/2021 - 21:37
        +1

        He eats while he is working I guess :)

  • Freezies on 26/04/2021 - 00:45
    -6

    Allowed? It's not the employer who decides this. They have to do this in keeping with the laws set out by the governments' fair work ombudsman. Legal? It's the actual law they're made to abide by not something they've decided to do on their own.

    The law states that employees cannot work any more than 5 hours without a meal break (which is your current 30 minutes) and must have an hour break when working 6 hours or more. Depending on the industry, the one hour break can apply to 5 hour shifts too.

    Your employers are now doing what they were supposed to have been doing the whole time to avoid getting in union/ombudsman trouble. Maybe they were caught out because someone dobbed them in. For every person like you, there are also those who complain when they don't get their full hour break. If you want to blame someone, then blame those who fought for workers rights.

    If you are unsure about your rights, then check the contract you signed and perhaps get up to scratch on laws and entitlements for your industry here (Rosters and breaks info should be somewhere under employee entitlements)

    • 000lynx on 26/04/2021 - 07:24
      +8

      Tha'ts not true at all. I work 8 hours a day and take a 30 minute unpaid meal break. I have read my workplace agreement and it states minimum 30 not 60 minutes.

    • Hardlyworkin on 26/04/2021 - 08:37
      +4

      @ Freezies. I know you're trying to help though mixing incorrect information with some good advice just confuses things.

      If you don't know which award or EBA (if any) applies to OP then you don't know what his entitlements are. There is no general law for breaks under the Fair Work Act 2009 so not sure how you are stating one.

    • tikei on 26/04/2021 - 18:42

      Nah I had 30 minute unpaid lunch breaks when I did shift work in the past.

  • CyberMurning on 26/04/2021 - 09:19
    -3

    means they are good, because 30 mins is not enough to eat and rest. enjoy your time, make friends go out take picture walk run or just take nap

    • ceroau on 27/04/2021 - 07:55
      +3

      This is highly dependent on a person job and what they’re eating. Maybe if your job is hard labour and you’re cooking up your own meal or travelling from site to the local takeaway sure 30 minutes probably isn’t enough but if you work in an office and you’ve put last night left overs in the office kitchen fridge and all that it needs is couple of minutes in the microwave 30 minutes is more than enough time to eat and rest.

  • Brucet on 26/04/2021 - 09:20
    +1

    Ask worker Union.

  • chrisharry53 on 26/04/2021 - 09:22

    Completely legal as nobody gets a paid meal break or it would be very rare. Did anyone ask why if not told why? I would find out the reason/s and then consider asking to revert to a 30 minute break with the option to take a 60 minute break if I required it.

    Do you work closely with other workers or have your own tasks to complete individually? If team work closely together on tasks, the team could ask as above if in agreement.

    • terrys on 29/04/2021 - 10:01

      "Completely legal as nobody gets a paid meal break"

      It's what happens when the award states a 20 minute "crib" break - I've worked under 4 of them.

  • snooksy on 26/04/2021 - 10:50
    -1

    Seems reasonable by your employer. They probably want you rested when working a long shift so you can focus.

    • StalkingIbis on 26/04/2021 - 18:06
      +12

      SOunds like it benefits the employer

  • OzHunterNSW on 26/04/2021 - 12:02

    Ring the appropriate agency to find out

  • redforever on 26/04/2021 - 12:04

    Are they reducing your rostered paid hours to cover the 30mins additional break?

    • [Deactivated] on 26/04/2021 - 15:28

      The rostered times are the same, but we are losing 30 minutes of paid time each shift over 6 hours.

      • redforever on 26/04/2021 - 21:45
        +4

        So do you now getting less than the minimum 20 hours per week?
        If so, maybe ask them to increase your roster to the agreed min of 20 hours.

      • Assburg on 27/04/2021 - 14:12

        You now also gain 30 minutes on shifts greater than 5 hrs but less than 6 hrs….

    • [Deactivated] on 26/04/2021 - 15:29
      +10

      So employers can just take 30 mins of pay from staff without warning?
      Your reasoning is bull shyte.

      • picklewizard on 26/04/2021 - 16:20
        -1

        Nobody is taking 30 mins of pay from you, let's be clear about this

        • [Deactivated] on 26/04/2021 - 20:03
          +11

          Yes they are lol. I'm doing the same shift, getting forced to take a 60 minute break, instead of the previous 30 minute break, and getting paid 30 mins less.

          • cashless on 26/04/2021 - 20:37
            -1

            @[Deactivated]: But you’re working 30 minutes less aren’t you?

            • Chandler on 26/04/2021 - 21:20
              +14

              @cashless: So you'd be happy for your employer to take almost 10% of your pay from you and give you a longer lunch break?

              • Yes, OP isn't having to be at work any longer
              • Yes, OP is getting a longer break
              • But OP may not have needed/wanted a longer break
              • And OP may need that pay that they are now losing

              It may be legal, that doesn't make it right.

              It may not bother you (you may even prefer the arrangement), but that doesn't mean it doesn't bother everyone.

              OP's employer has changed the terms of their agreement. OP can live with it, leave over it, or discuss it further with their employer (either personally or through a union).

            • [Deactivated] on 27/04/2021 - 08:40

              @cashless: No, the shift is exactly the same. They're just saying because it's not as busy that we must take an extra 30 minutes of break time.
              Problem is we still get this break time (even if it is 30 mins) interrupted to do unscheduled work.

              • Quantumcat on 27/04/2021 - 17:43
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: Leave the premises during your break?

              • Euphemistic on 27/04/2021 - 22:34

                @[Deactivated]: So stand your ground. Don’t work during a scheduled break, or make up the additional time later. They aren’t paying you for it.

                Sounds like a scam to pay you less because you’ll end up working part of your break because you get bored at lunch and go back to work early. I’m often heading back to work shy of my total break time because I’ve finished lunch and have things to do.

          • picklewizard on 27/04/2021 - 11:04
            -6

            @[Deactivated]: Nobody is docking you 30 minutes pay. You are still working the same about of time.

            I'm not saying it's not bullshit, but your statement is demonstrably false.

            • Chandler on 28/04/2021 - 07:29
              +1

              @picklewizard:

              Nobody is docking you 30 minutes pay. You are still working the same about of time.

              From everything OP has said, sounds like they are.

              OP will be at work the same amount of time (i.e. 9am to 5pm), but as their unpaid break is being increased from 30 to 60 minutes, they will be getting 30 minutes less pay for that shift.

              Yes, they're getting a longer break, but they are getting paid less because of it.

            • terrys on 29/04/2021 - 10:08

              @picklewizard: This, only two posts below one where the O.P. states this "break" can be "interrupted".

              i.e. It isn't a sodding break! This unpaid time during which the employer still expects work to be done if requested has been extended for 1/2 an hour and the O.P.'s wages reduced.

              Still, the employer's definition of "break" appears to be closer to reality than your definition of " demonstratably"…

  • modiika on 26/04/2021 - 17:04
    +8

    I think you have worded your question poorly and the majority of people here have misunderstood. I think people have just taken your post to mean your break has increased from 30-60 mins, and your pay was unaffected.

    However, from reading your other comments, the core issue appears to be that they have changed your working day so you work 30mins less per day and accordingly pay you less. So they are dropping 2.5 hours from your pay per week, which does add up. On top of this, you don't go home any earlier, as they have just increased your break length.

    Ultimately, if your contract says a minimum 20 hours a week, and you are still over this, then there probably isnt much you can do. However, given your line of work, it probably would be worth speaking to the Union or Fair Work Australia.

  • htc on 26/04/2021 - 17:23

    I almost felt odd reading you are complaining about getting extra 30 minutes lunch time but when I reached the end of sentence that it is unpaid it start to make sense.

  • Takeonme on 26/04/2021 - 17:48
    +4

    Take your break at the end of the shift and piss off home

    • titewod on 26/04/2021 - 19:46

      Agree.. Do six hours of work, then leave. Tell 'em to jam it.

      • Save 50 Cent on 26/04/2021 - 21:01

        OP might want to secure another job before pulling this stunt! I’m not sure where you work but this won’t fly in most workplaces.
        As annoying as it sounds, I suspect the employer know what they did is not illegal.
        I’m lucky that where I work, we get to choose how long of a break we want with a minimum of 30 min. I find 45 min is the sweet spot especially when I don’t pack my lunch.

        • titewod on 27/04/2021 - 12:49
          +1

          Fair enough. Yeah I work in an industry where there's a huge shortage of skilled people. I do five hour shifts myself ..

          Isn't it funny how a law that was designed to protect workers by preventing overwork just ended up benefiting the employers, in the form of unpaid overtime?

    • worrierwan on 26/04/2021 - 20:47
      +30

      Nothing screems boomer more than this

        • smartazz104 on 27/04/2021 - 07:34
          +1

          So you must be a professional chef by now at least…

          • Magnastar on 27/04/2021 - 08:17
            +2

            @smartazz104: No I’ve been an apprentice for 20 years. Not too far off finally becoming a professional fingers crossed.

      • terrys on 29/04/2021 - 10:12

        Speaking as a boomer, nothing screams egotist more than this - most "boomers" would have appreciated the advantages of a Union, and joined…

    • tebbybabes on 26/04/2021 - 21:16
      +5

      I'm not against hard work at all. But work is work. And expecting to be remunerated for work done is only fair. I have no issue if my days off were like you said, days where every other person you knew in the world was either at school or at work - as long as this was made clear to me from the start.

      But to put in work and not be paid for it is just wrong. I wouldn't have stayed at your job at 16 years old, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to either.

      • Magnastar on 26/04/2021 - 21:34
        -4

        You are correct about choosing to stay in a job or not. My point was people these days like OP cannot understand the idea of being asked to do any work above and beyond exactly what is stipulated in a work agreement without it being a massive drama, whereas older generations just got on with doing a job and putting in above and beyond if it was needed without complaining or causing a fuss. I just see these threads and shake my head because being an employer these days must be an absolute nightmare.

        • SF3 on 26/04/2021 - 22:08
          +1

          IMHO, it’s has to be a 2 way street for give and take. Employers shouldn’t be cheat their employees, but employees shouldn’t feel entitled either.

          Unfortunately the bad employers and employees are the ones seen on a headline, a lot of people then start to have doubts about their employer or employees.

          employer these days must be an absolute nightmare.

          Does seems to be the case…

        • Blue Cat on 27/04/2021 - 18:08
          +1

          the idea of being asked to do any work above and beyond exactly what is stipulated in a work agreement

          Problem is, people realise that nowadays employers do not give a f*** if you go above and beyond so it is most efficient to just do only the minimum required cuz your salary is the same. You are easily replaceable. If you died right now the employer wouldn't care and would have someone replacing you within days.

          BTW, if they see you go above and beyond, they will just start to abuse your kindness and just increase your workload. I am not a "zoomer" who has smashed avo every day and chugs down anti-depressants because I have to work, I am just a person who noticed a pattern everywhere I worked and use it for my own benefit - do exactly what you are told, nothing less, nothing more and you won't be "abused".

        • Heaps for Cheaps on 28/04/2021 - 11:48

          The employers should quit if they don't like it.

    • macfudd on 26/04/2021 - 22:05
      +3

      Why imagine? Just go down to a local restaurant and see for yourself, teenagers are exploited by employers just as much today as they were in our day.

      • ThithLord on 27/04/2021 - 08:47
        +2

        Magnastar will sit, idle, in the restaurant, see the teenagers being exploited still, and breath a sigh of relief.

        • Magnastar on 27/04/2021 - 09:12
          -2

          Yeah when I was 16 and working on my feet for 12 hours straight without a break, that could have been considered exploitation not being paid for working through my 4 hour split sure. Today, teenagers get asked to stay back 10 minutes overtime and mop the floor without getting paid for it and cry exploitation.

          My idea of exploitation and yours is very very different.

          • [Deactivated] on 27/04/2021 - 20:44

            @Magnastar:

            Today, teenagers get asked to stay back 10 minutes overtime and mop the floor without getting paid for it and cry exploitation.

            I know plenty of people who work well beyond their standard hours. A friend in engineering who does 10 hour days and every second weekend. Friends in big accounting firms who do 10 hour days and most weekends. Loads of teachers who do 50-60 hour weeks. A sparky mate who does 12 hour days, at least he's paid for MOST of it unlike the previous people I mentioned, but has a massive commute. Also, lets be real here, OP isn't talking about a one off extra 30 minutes. This is possibly 5 days a week for god knows how long, it's not a simple case of staying back an extra 10 mins…

          • terrys on 29/04/2021 - 10:17

            @Magnastar: We used to call that crawling.You clearly thought you were gaining an advantage, the alternative leaves the option of you being trusted with anything sharper than a baseball bat quite horrifying.

            The current state of employee condition can well be shafted home to "go-getters" such as your self undermining and ignoring the rights for which other workers had undegone gennuine hardship to obtain for you.

            • Magnastar on 29/04/2021 - 10:27

              @terrys: Well at the end of the day we don’t live in a communist country. I put in the extra without expecting immediate gain, and it ended up providing me with many opportunities for years afterwards. That’s a lesson I learned at 16. You can either whinge because you’re not willing to do more than the absolute minimum, or you can get on with the job and do what needs to be done. Both types get remembered down the track, but only one gets rewarded while the other gets left behind.

    • ThithLord on 27/04/2021 - 08:45
      +5

      Congratulations, you're a boot-licker. I'd give you a participation medal but I know you boomers hate those (even though it came out during your tenure)

      • Magnastar on 27/04/2021 - 09:17
        -2

        I’m not a boomer, but I don’t think it’s about boomers hating recognition or participation medals, it probably more boomers don’t desperately seek out recognition for doing basic things like kids do today.

        Literally see posts on Facebook every day with people taking photos of a piece of rubbish they’ve picked up and put on the bin then written a novel about how great they are and shaming everyone else.

        • ThithLord on 27/04/2021 - 09:40
          +3

          My apologies, you display MASSIVE boomer energy.

          I have no idea how your second sentence relates to a single thing this thread is about, mate

          • Magnastar on 27/04/2021 - 09:52
            -2

            @ThithLord: Boomer energy? I guess I’m just stuck between one generation who worked hard and didn’t complain and a generation who want everything for absolutely nothing and need to be awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for outstanding achievements in tying their shoelaces.

            • ThithLord on 27/04/2021 - 09:56
              +3

              @Magnastar: Like I said, massive Boomer energy. MASSIVE.

              • Magnastar on 27/04/2021 - 10:01

                @ThithLord: My apologies. I’m more than happy to cover the costs of your therapy this week given you’re no doubt deeply traumatised from having a slight disagreement with someone on the on the internet.

                Just breath in and out deeply, you’ll be fine.

                • ThithLord on 27/04/2021 - 10:04
                  +5

                  @Magnastar: lol I hope you realise the complete irony in you getting triggered and acting like a snowflake, yeah?

                  • Magnastar on 27/04/2021 - 10:08

                    @ThithLord: I’m not triggered I knew the snowflakes would descend the moment I decided to write my original post in this thread. You’ve lived right up to expectations by continuing to reply like the true snowflake you are. Your taxes are paying me to sit here and argue with you about nothing, so we can stop whenever you want “lol”

                    • ThithLord on 27/04/2021 - 10:18
                      +6

                      @Magnastar: So you've commented that OP should put up and shut up about receiving less pay, all the while you are getting paid by my "taxes" for arguing on the internet…. riiiiight.

                      Your sentiment does not make any sense, cuz

                      • Magnastar on 27/04/2021 - 10:23

                        @ThithLord: I didn’t actually mention anything about what the OP should do. You should go back and read it again and you’ll see that, and then if you want, you can go google sentiment and see where you went wrong there too, brah.

                        • ThithLord on 27/04/2021 - 10:38
                          +3

                          @Magnastar: Your very first sentence:

                          Love these posts.

                          I can't interpret that in any other way other than as a referral to the OP.

                          • Magnastar on 27/04/2021 - 10:47

                            @ThithLord: Congratulations, you interpreted that a comment on the OP’s post was referring to the OP’s post. It won’t be long before an OAM is sitting next to your name.

                            You’re ignoring that my comment wasn’t actually suggesting the OP go in any direction, it was clearly more about me enjoying posts about kids going bananas about being asked to do a little extra for nothing.

    • baskinghobo on 27/04/2021 - 13:28
      +6

      Wtf. So just because millennials don't put up with wage theft in this day and age you call them soft? I could just as easily say your generation was soft because it was more widespread and people didn't grow a spine and speak up. Just because people didn't complain about it in your day and age doesn't mean it should stay that way.

      This is like someone calling a worker a whinger for complaining about not getting worker's comp because back in their day they didn't have it. Just because we stick up for ourselves even when we don't have things as bad as our previous generations did doesn't mean we should stop doing it.

      I see this behavior with a lot of toxic managers. If you speak up about something they see it as
      whinging. But when they complain they see it as being tough.

      • Magnastar on 27/04/2021 - 13:38
        -1

        The people who didn’t have a spine who had job security for life, bought houses young, own investment properties, and now pay for half their kids lifestyles these days because they want everything for nothing?

        I’m not sure it’s the managers who are toxic.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join