Michigan Break
|
Benefits |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Can a Michigan employer legitimately establish a policy that workers may not leave the premises on their breaks? I realize that breaks are not legally required, but if they are given, can the employer set limits on what an employee can do during his or her break time?
Not only is it perfectly legal to establish such a policy, it would be wise. Not to do so could expose an employer to expenses, liability, and long, costly lawsuits.
Most companies have a similar policy that workers cannot leave the premises during breaks.
An employer may not only require that an employee stay on the premises during a short paid break, but he or she may require the same for an unpaid meal break of a half hour or longer.
Michigan has no break law. In its place, the venerable Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 applies.
The law does not require employers to provide any breaks at all, whether short paid rest breaks or longer unpaid meal breaks. Most employers find, of course, that providing both kinds of breaks enhances worker productivity.
However, the law says that if an employer provides breaks of no more than 20 minutes, the time must be paid. Meal periods, usually a half hour or longer, need not be compensated for.
Neither are employers obligated to pay for unauthorized extensions of work breaks, as long as such an extension goes against company policy and the employee is fully informed of the consequences of his or her acts.
Federal law specifically says the following about unpaid meal breaks: “It is not necessary that an employee be permitted to leave the premises if he is otherwise completely freed from duties during the meal break.”
Consider the consequences of allowing an employee off the premises during a paid break. Workers who suffer injuries in the workplace and “on the clock” are usually covered by Workers’ Comp insurance. Workers’ Comp would be unlikely to pay for an off-premises injury, arguing that the employee was not technically working. On the other hand, if the worker caused an accident resulting in liability, the employer could face a long, costly, complicated lawsuit. A court could determine that, because the employee was being paid at the time of the incident, he or she was technically working at the time, very likely making the employer liable. JH
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am and is filed under
Benefits, Workplace Management.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
-
Ask a Question
Categories
- Attendance Management (827)
- Benefits (1264)
- Compensation (1247)
- Employment Training (295)
- Hiring and Staffing (727)
- Human Resources Management (2055)
- Labor Laws (1040)
- Management / Leadership Development (302)
- Performance Management (182)
- Structural Development (41)
- Termination (439)
- Workplace Health & Safety (226)
- Workplace Management (397)
Blogroll
Archives
Recent Posts
-
Doctors note/certification
January 8th, 2009 -
Hourly vs. Salaried non-exempt
January 8th, 2009 -
Benefits for Florida employees
January 8th, 2009 -
Exempt/non-exempt
January 8th, 2009 -
Maternity leave in Missouri, Small Employer
January 7th, 2009 -
Mandatory overtime hours
January 7th, 2009 -
Notice of overtime
January 7th, 2009
Pages