Employer frequently breaching employment law

[juliethotel]

Hi all, I'm after some advice

I currently work for a well known high street bookmakers and have done for the past 15 months.

The area I work in has been badly understaffed for quite a while now.

I am frequently working more than 6 hours without getting a break, this has happened probably 10-20 times in the past year, but I'm now keeping a log of when it occurs.

What shall I do about this?


Thanks

[HenryJM]

juliethotel said:

Hi all, I'm after some advice

I currently work for a well known high street bookmakers and have done for the past 15 months.

The area I work in has been badly understaffed for quite a while now.

I am frequently working more than 6 hours without getting a break, this has happened probably 10-20 times in the past year, but I'm now keeping a log of when it occurs.

What shall I do about this?


Thanks

What are you actually doing?

The rule is that if you work for more than six hours you have to have a break and it must not be at the start or end of a day. But that does not mean that you can't work more than 6 hours without a break.

So if you are starting at, say, 9 and finishing at 5 without a break - that is against the rules. But starting at 9, having a break at 11, then finishing at 6 is not against the rules despite the second part being more than 6 hours. (Yes, it's mad, but its the way the rules are written).

If you are working from start to finish over six hours without a break then you can put in a formal complaint. Of course you have only worked there for 15 months and so are unprotected if they want to part company with you.

[juliethotel]

Today for example, I have worked from 740am and got an hour and 20 minute break at 310pm.

Surely I was entitled to a break at 140pm?

[HenryJM]

juliethotel said:

Today for example, I have worked from 740am and got an hour and 20 minute break at 310pm.

Surely I was entitled to a break at 140pm?

No you aren't. It sounds daft (arguably is daft) but so long as you get a break between your start time and end time then it is allowed. There is nothing to say that one of the working periods can't be more than six hours without a break.

So 7:40 to 3:10 and 5 to 7 (or whatever) is perfectly legal. The only time it wouldn't be, perversely, is if you only worked 7:40 to 3:10 then finished.

So the rule is that if your time between start and finish is more than six hours you should have a break, but no rules (other than not attaching to the start or end time) dictate when it should be.

[juliethotel]

Purity14 said:

No, when did you start and when did you finish?
Then tell us when your break was..!

I started work this morning at 740am, I will finish at 10.10pm. I've had an hour and 20 min break that started at 3.10pm.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/workingtime.htm says:

"A worker is entitled to an uninterrupted break of 20 minutes when daily working time is more than six hours. It should be a break in working time and should not be taken either at the start, or at the end, of a working day."

[Burrito]

You've answered your own question there.

[T1547]

14.5 hour shift.. nice..

Are there not any rules around length of shift.

ETA: so based on your shift starting at 7.40am and finishing at gone 10pm are you expected to have all of your meals for the day at 3pm when you have a break? No 15 minute breaks before / after?

I'm sure the best way to approach this may be to have a word with someone, probably your line manager first and ask for a more reasonable break pattern based on the very long shift you're working. If they don't play ball you could kick it up to HR.

Edited by T1547 on Thursday 24th July 19:56

[juliethotel]

Well the way we usually work is someone will open the shop at 740am and work through until close at 10.10. Another person is due to come at either 12 or 1pm and do either 4 or 5 hours. This works fine and well when this happens.

The problem is we are so badly understaffed that there is no-one to work the 4 or 5 hour shift.

Staff that are doing the 4 or 5 hour shifts are made to 'relieve' 2 or 3 shops in one shift. I.e. go around the shops giving the all-day staff an hour or so's break.

This invariably means that someone won't get a break until 3, sometimes 4pm.

Although as HenryJM mentions, it seems there is no regulation as to how long an employee can work for without a break, it seems as long as they get one, of the right length then it's perfectly lawful.

[HenryJM]

juliethotel said:

Well the way we usually work is someone will open the shop at 740am and work through until close at 10.10. Another person is due to come at either 12 or 1pm and do either 4 or 5 hours. This works fine and well when this happens.

The problem is we are so badly understaffed that there is no-one to work the 4 or 5 hour shift.

Staff that are doing the 4 or 5 hour shifts are made to 'relieve' 2 or 3 shops in one shift. I.e. go around the shops giving the all-day staff an hour or so's break.

This invariably means that someone won't get a break until 3, sometimes 4pm.

Although as HenryJM mentions, it seems there is no regulation as to how long an employee can work for without a break, it seems as long as they get one, of the right length then it's perfectly lawful.

It is, you have to wonder if it was just badly worded but that is what it says and so that is what it has to mean.

[Pit Pony]

However the law on hours is written, it doesn't trump the Health and Safety Principle that the employer has a duty of care, to the employee, to protect their health. And if the employee is getting tired, or dehydrated, or using a computer, or operating equipment, the assessment of risk via a formal risk assessment should include something related to the need for regular breaks.

So if you are working 6 hours without a break and you are getting symptoms of fatigue, or dizziness, you have a duty to inform your employer, and they have a duty to look into the way the job is organised to minimise the risk to your health or safety.

[MajorProblem]

What are the odds on the employer changing their tune?

[Sir Fergie]

T1547 said:

14.5 hour shift.. nice..

Are there not any rules around length of shift.

ETA: so based on your shift starting at 7.40am and finishing at gone 10pm are you expected to have all of your meals for the day at 3pm when you have a break? No 15 minute breaks before / after?

I'm sure the best way to approach this may be to have a word with someone, probably your line manager first and ask for a more reasonable break pattern based on the very long shift you're working. If they don't play ball you could kick it up to HR.

Edited by T1547 on Thursday 24th July 19:56

I guess youd have breakfast before going to work - and have something after the 10 pm finish - so in theory 3 meals.

In reality - what are the health implications of such eating patterns if your doing this 14.5 hour shifts all the time.

These 14.5 hour shifts are horrible though - if your working several days in a row - your either working or sleeping - not a nice situation to be in imo.

Time to consider alternative jobs options if that's possible - imo

[juliethotel]

We don't work consecutive all-day shifts. That would be in breach of the 11 hours between shifts directive, (not strictly a law?) which strangely my company takes very seriously.

Oh I'm looking for other work, the thing is I can go out and get another job easy, but there is no point in going into another job i'm not fussed about. I'd rather hold on and find something I want to be doing.

[HenryJM]

juliethotel said:

We don't work consecutive all-day shifts. That would be in breach of the 11 hours between shifts directive, (not strictly a law?) which strangely my company takes very seriously.

Oh I'm looking for other work, the thing is I can go out and get another job easy, but there is no point in going into another job i'm not fussed about. I'd rather hold on and find something I want to be doing.

It sounds like they know and obey the law. Whilst the H&S angle has it's moments it's not likely to get anywhere, getting another job is the best option - as it nearly always is for most employment issues of you can.

[Vaud]

Sir Fergie said:

In reality - what are the health implications of such eating patterns if your doing this 14.5 hour shifts all the time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28442550

[anonymous-user]

juliethotel said:

We don't work consecutive all-day shifts. That would be in breach of the 11 hours between shifts directive, (not strictly a law?) which strangely my company takes very seriously.

...

It is a law. There are UK Regulations (secondary legislation made by the Government under the authority of Parliament) on working time, which are based on a European Directive (a Directive is a type of EU legislation that is implemented into national legal systems by EU Member States).