Breaking news: expect to be flexible under National

OPINION: In one of its final acts, the Labour Government enacted provisions covering rest and meal breaks for workers, writes Mary-Jane Thomas in this week's Work to Rule.

To a large extent those rest and meal break provisions were not contentious and provided for only what was happening in practice.

Those provisions required a 10-minute break for those who work four hours or less; one 10-minute break and one 30-minute (unpaid) meal break for those who work more than four hours but less than six hours in a day; and two 10-minute breaks and one 30-minute (unpaid) meal break for those who work more than six but less than eight hours in a day.

Before these minimum breaks came into force, employers and employees had to rely on what happened by custom or what the respective employment agreements required. Most firms found the reforms to be sensible and a reflection of what they did in practice.

There were some anomalies. The most public were school teachers and regional airports that ran sole-charge air traffic controllers. Others included pharmacies (who had to have a registered pharmacist on duty while they were open) and meatworks with continuous production schedules.

The National Government has signalled focused proportionate changes to employment law, not a philosophically driven series of major upheavals.

National's first change was the 90-day trial period legislation that took effect on March 1. The second was the ministerial advisory group report (due this year) looking into the confusing aspects of the Holidays Act, and third will be a signalled change to the rest-break legislation. The final signalled review is likely to be into what the Government sees as the potential abuse and cost of personal grievances.

The proposed changes to the rest and meal breaks legislation will see "practical changes" being made. These will centre on flexibility of the time the breaks are taken and their duration, with the aim of making them more responsive to operational requirements. The bill proposes the employer and the employee(s) first try to agree on the timing and duration of breaks but if they cannot it will be up to the employer to fix reasonable times for, and duration of, such breaks.

The bill also aims to relax the requirements around what constitutes a break, in order to make them more flexible for the likes of a sole operator.

These provisions would allow the employer to require an employee to take breaks while being aware of having to serve customers, for example, or allowing the employee to be interrupted during the break; or they could be required to take their break in a certain location – for example, at a control panel.

There will also be consideration of compensation for when a break just cannot be taken. This would happen only when, taking into account the work being done, breaks could not reasonably be provided. Compensation could be late starts, early finishes or time off on a different day. The compensation would be dependent on the agreement of both the employer and the employee(s).

The process will allow for public submissions but the aim of the change is to be more responsive to the needs of the workplace rather than detracting from existing conditions of work.wNow, I am a harness racing fanatic and, apart from a whole day on the couch watching Bathurst one year when I was pregnant, I have never got into motor sports. However, my boys and I all went to the Burt Munro street racing at Wyndham and it was very, very cool. We got to sit at the first corner after the start, in a big truck (Thanks Melanie and Keith at Silage-Baleage Ltd), and after a few races I was (of course) an expert on tactics – go as fast as you possibly can to get to the first corner and then it's up to the other guys/girls to pass you if they are brave enough.

From what I saw, the stipes at the trots would have suspended half the field for interference after the first 50 metres. If there is anyone left in Southland who has not been to at least one event in that weekend – for goodness' sake go next time – by then I may be going through a mid-life crisis and have bought a Triumph.

» Mary-Jane Thomas is a partner at Preston Russell Law. E-mail questions to mary-jane.thomas@prlaw.co.nz.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First