Rest and meal breaksClauses 43 to 46 of the bill would change the existing rules for employees’ entitlements to rest and meal breaks. The aim is to move from a prescriptive to a more flexible approach, encouraging employers and employees to negotiate in good faith about workable arrangements as to how and when breaks should be taken. The changes proposed would require an employer to provide reasonable compensatory measures where an employee could not reasonably be provided with breaks.We are aware of considerable concern about these provisions, particularly about the possible impact on employees’ health and safety if breaks are restricted. We have considered these issues carefully.The majority of us consider two points to be particularly relevant. First, the bill would not override any requirements under other legislation. For example, specific regulations governing hours of work for drivers of passenger transport services, and—importantly—the general duty imposed on employers under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, would be unaffected by the provisions in question. Section 6 of that Act imposes a general duty on employers to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of employees at work, including providing and maintaining a safe work environment. An employer’s responsibility under that Act for controlling hazards extends to any person’s behaviour resulting from physical or mental fatigue that might be an actual or potential source of harm to themselves or others. Providing breaks, or varying the nature or intensity of work, would remain obvious ways for an employer to address such hazards, regardless of the changes proposed in the bill.A second important consideration is the reasonableness test in these clauses. Clause 44, new section 69ZD(2), specifies that any restriction of rest or meal breaks must be reasonable and necessary, having regard to the nature of the employee’s work. If breaks were not provided, a reasonable compensatory measure must be provided (new section 69ZEB).The majority of us consider that these factors would ensure that the bill met the policy intent of improving workplace flexibility, while continuing to protect the rights of employees. Accordingly, we are not recommending any amendment of these provisions.
I'm OK with this.However with no hard and fast rule, it may become harder to prove in a court of law that you're not being given adequate work breaks.
i think an addendum should be added to current law to say that it is advisable or ideal working conditions etc, but up to individual contract to negotiate
