Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Anyone familiar with arbitration requiring drivers to take lunch on car?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="laborer" data-source="post: 499319" data-attributes="member: 1086"><p>It seems there are no federal laws that require employers to provide lunch hours however there are requirements if a company has a meal period. This is from the Dept of Labor and it would seem that if an employee was forced to stay with their package car(desk, as in the example)for their meal period then they haven't been relieved of their duties and would have a case to be compensated. JMHO</p><p></p><p>29 CFR 785.19 - Meal.</p><p></p><p> * Section Number: 785.19</p><p> * Section Name: Meal.</p><p></p><p> (a) Bona fide meal periods. Bona fide meal periods are not worktime.</p><p> Bona</p><p> fide meal periods do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks. These</p><p> are rest periods. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for</p><p> the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is</p><p> long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long</p><p> enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he is</p><p> required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while</p><p> eating. For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his</p><p> desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working</p><p> while eating. (Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin, Nebraska Co., 97 friend. Supp. 661</p><p> (D. Neb. 1951), aff'd 197 friend. 2d 981 (C.A. 8, 1952), cert. denied 344</p><p> U.S. 888 (1952); Thompson v. Stock & Sons, Inc., 93 friend. Supp. 213 (E.D.</p><p> Mich 1950), aff'd 194 friend. 2d 493 (C.A. 6, 1952); Biggs v. Joshua Hendy</p><p> Corp., 183 friend. 2d 515 (C. A. 9, 1950), 187 friend. 2d 447 (C.A. 9, 1951);</p><p> Walling v. Dunbar Transfer & Storage Co., 3 W.H. Cases 284; 7 Labor</p><p> Cases para. 61.565 (W.D. Tenn. 1943); Lofton v. Seneca Coal and Coke</p><p> Co., 2 W.H. Cases 669; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,271 (N.D. Okla. 1942);</p><p> aff'd 136 friend. 2d 359 (C.A. 10, 1943); cert. denied 320 U.S. 772 (1943);</p><p> Mitchell v. Tampa Cigar Co., 36 Labor Cases para. 65, 198, 14 W.H. Cases</p><p> 38 (S.D. Fla. 1959); Douglass v. Hurwitz Co., 145 friend. Supp. 29, 13 W.H.</p><p> Cases (E.D. Pa. 1956))</p><p> (b) Where no permission to leave premises. It is not necessary that</p><p> an employee be permitted to leave the premises if he is otherwise</p><p> completely freed from duties during the meal period.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="laborer, post: 499319, member: 1086"] It seems there are no federal laws that require employers to provide lunch hours however there are requirements if a company has a meal period. This is from the Dept of Labor and it would seem that if an employee was forced to stay with their package car(desk, as in the example)for their meal period then they haven't been relieved of their duties and would have a case to be compensated. JMHO 29 CFR 785.19 - Meal. * Section Number: 785.19 * Section Name: Meal. (a) Bona fide meal periods. Bona fide meal periods are not worktime. Bona fide meal periods do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks. These are rest periods. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating. For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working while eating. (Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin, Nebraska Co., 97 friend. Supp. 661 (D. Neb. 1951), aff'd 197 friend. 2d 981 (C.A. 8, 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 888 (1952); Thompson v. Stock & Sons, Inc., 93 friend. Supp. 213 (E.D. Mich 1950), aff'd 194 friend. 2d 493 (C.A. 6, 1952); Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corp., 183 friend. 2d 515 (C. A. 9, 1950), 187 friend. 2d 447 (C.A. 9, 1951); Walling v. Dunbar Transfer & Storage Co., 3 W.H. Cases 284; 7 Labor Cases para. 61.565 (W.D. Tenn. 1943); Lofton v. Seneca Coal and Coke Co., 2 W.H. Cases 669; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,271 (N.D. Okla. 1942); aff'd 136 friend. 2d 359 (C.A. 10, 1943); cert. denied 320 U.S. 772 (1943); Mitchell v. Tampa Cigar Co., 36 Labor Cases para. 65, 198, 14 W.H. Cases 38 (S.D. Fla. 1959); Douglass v. Hurwitz Co., 145 friend. Supp. 29, 13 W.H. Cases (E.D. Pa. 1956)) (b) Where no permission to leave premises. It is not necessary that an employee be permitted to leave the premises if he is otherwise completely freed from duties during the meal period. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Anyone familiar with arbitration requiring drivers to take lunch on car?
Top