AB 569 Gives New Industries Ability to Bargain Meal-Break Rules

January 13, 2011 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine

Labor Code Section 512 and the Wage Orders generally prohibit employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without providing a meal period of at least 30 minutes, require second meal periods after 10 hours, and prohibit employers from requiring employees to work during any meal or rest period, subject to a penalty of an hour’s pay for each day the meal period rules are violated. AB 569, signed last fall, gives bargaining parties greater flexibility in scheduling meal periods for construction employees, commercial drivers, certain security officers, and employees of electrical and gas corporations and local publicly owned electric utilities. This law took effect on January 1, 2011.

To take advantage of AB 569, the CBA must provide for a meal period and must provide for final and binding arbitration of any disputes arising from application of the meal period. The CBA must also provide a premium wage rate for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate of pay at least 30% more than the state minimum wage rate. The law applies to “Commercial Drivers,” defined as employees who operate a:

• commercial vehicle (one which transports persons for hire or profit, or property),
• commercial motor vehicle that requires a class A or class B license, or a Class C license with a hazardous materials endorsement; or
• paratransit vehicle (which doesn’t otherwise meet either of the above criteria).

It also applies to “Construction Occupations,” broadly defined to include all job classifications associated with construction, including work involving alteration, demolition, building, excavation, renovation, remodeling, maintenance, improvement, and repair, and any other similar or related occupation or trade.

While a number of labor organizations opposed AB 569 as an attempt to erode workers’ rights to meal periods, the new law will allow unions and employers to agree to flexible scheduling of meal periods in certain industries where the current requirements have been difficult to apply and unpopular with many employees.

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.