working time directive/paid meal breaks

[miliitant]

i am throwing this question to the forum for advice.
i am a branch official for a national trade union for a national employeer

the company for which i am employed has by a national agreement/collective decision a 40 minute paid meal relief since the year dot.

they now are trying to force through a change where by the meal relief is split into two 20 minute breaks. thats 20 minutes around 9 am and 20 minutes taken off the end of your duty/finish time. this has been sprung on the office last friday and we have about 150 staff.

the statutory minimum entitlement reference breaks in the working time directive is a 20 minute break if you work more than six hours, the break cannot be taken either at the start or end of your duty, and must be in one block.

the employer provides more than the statutory requirement of a 20 minute break by providing a 40 minute break.

now as the employeer has trade union representation, any change would need to go to a local vote/local agreement to change to a 20/20 minute break by the staff on the floor.

another spanner in the works would be the 40 minute break has allways been the norm so custom and practice comes into the question so if the employeer tries to use executive action to bring in this change, the employeer would be in breach of everyones contract of employment

i am well aware of the reasons under economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce by the employeer, but as we operate under collective agreements, ill put that to one side for the moment

I REQUIRE ADVICE ON THE EMPLOYEER SPLITTING THE 40 MINUTE MEAL RELIEF INTO 20/20 WITHOUT CONSULTATION

HOW THAT EFFECTS THE STATUTORY MINIMUM BREAK OF 20 MINUTES BEING THE EMPLOYER HAS PROVIDED A 40 MINUTE PAID RELEASE BY CUSTOM AND PRACTICE

AND BY INSTIGATION A POLICY OF TAKING 20 MINUTES OFF THE END OF YOUR DUTY ALLOWING STAFF TO NOT TAKE THEIR BREAK AND FINISH 20 MINUTES EARLY

i am looking after the staff wellfare as i know staff will not take their break with the carrot of finishing early dangled in front of them

i realise this is difficult so if teaboy is about it would be appreciated.
the employer continues to rebuff my questions and fails to arrange meetings to discuse this matter in a calm concise manner.

i will have no allternative than to involve ACAS if this continues

many thanks

[teaboy2]

Re: working time directive/paid meal breaks

Hi Militant

Well firstly their is the issue of the agreement with the union they have, which they could be sued for by the union if they go against the agreement.

And secondly their is the issue of what is in your contract regarding rest periods. What does your contract say?

You also have the employers standard practice issue too.

In order for them to change this, then as it is likely written in your contract as a 40 minute paid break and the fact that splitting up the breaks so you have 20 minutes before you actually finished the shift, makes no economic sense and they'd be better letting you leave 20 minutes early whilst still paying you those 20 minutes. I find it very unlikely they can lawfully make this change without being in breach of either the agreement with the union or in breach of each employees contract.

But it depends what is in the contract regarding the rest breaks, to be honest. Because if it says nothing about rest breaks then legally they are only obliged to give you 20 minutes break for every 6 hours you work, now if you work over that each day then divide your total weekly hours by 6 and you know just how many 20 minutes breaks your entitled to in a week. As it is, it sounds to me like they are wanting to half the break time and give you the choice to stay the last 20 minutes and still be paid or go home 20 minutes early and not be paid, which would also play in to the employers hands as then your total hours will be less.

NOw regarding them blanking you - Have you only asked them informally or by grievance?

If by Grievance they are obliged legally to respond, they must also hold a full and proper consultancy period regarding their proposed changes. Even then if you and the other Employees are not happy you can vote to strike. I worked in a foundry back in 2005 and they refused one year to give us our annual pay increase, we wrote up a grievance all signed it and handed it in to the employer - In the grievance we made it clear we would go on unilateral strike (we were not members of a union) and we ended up getting what we wanted. Point of the story, is muster support from your colleagues and use your union powers to the full, but do not break any rules in the process. Once the employer realises they have a mutiny on their hands they will soon drop the proposals.

Off course they are other alternatives to striking, such as getting all employees to work at 50% of their usual pace, ultimately costing the company money - After all an unhappy workforce is an unproductive workforce and if your all doing it, then they can not sack you all. But that option is risking especially for those on probabtion or under performance review as they could lose their jobs if they also partaked in such action. So Union action is probably the safest route to follow.

Have you actually spoke to your Union about this? If so what have they said?