Please 200-250 words The Brinker Restaurant Group, owners of restaurant franchis
ID: 451636 • Letter: P
Question
Please 200-250 words
The Brinker Restaurant Group, owners of restaurant franchises such as Chili’s® Grill and Bar and Maggiano’s® Little Italy, was sued by its employees for not providing adequate meal and rest breaks. According to California Labor Code 512 and Wage Order no. 5, employees must be provided with rest periods — specifically, a 30-minute meal break — every 5 hours that they work. After 10 hours of consecutive work, the employee must be given a second meal break. The California Supreme Court ruled that the rest breaks had to be offered, but the employer did not have to ensure that the employee actually rested.
What do you think? Should employers ensure that employees on breaks do not perform any work? Why or why not?
Explanation / Answer
As per the California Labor Code 512 an employer will not be allowed to employ a person for more than five hours in a day if they don't provide a meal period of not less than 30 minutes (it can be more than 30 minutes). Also, an employer will not be allowed to employ a person for more than ten hours per day without giving the employee a second meal period. This meal period should also be not less than 30 minutes in duration.
Now, i think that the ruling of the Supreme Court is valid. The employer is completing its responsibility and fulfilling its obligation by providing rest breaks as specified by the labor code. The onus of using the rest break lies on the employees. The employer has done its part by offering the meal breaks and has relieved its employees of their duties. Secondly, the employer is not discouraging the employees from taking the breaks. Thus, the Brinker Restaurant Group has fulfilled its obligation by providing breaks and relieving the employees to enjoy the break. Whether the employees actually use the break or not is their own individual choice and discretion. The employer cannot control this individual choice of the employees.