(April 14, 2008) Legislation declaring the Legislature's intent to clarify the state’s meal period law won unanimous approval from the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee last week. The vote reflected bipartisan recognition of the need for change and further discussions to find consensus on a solution.

The committee amended SB 1539 (Ron Calderon; D-Montebello), which was sponsored and supported by the California Chamber of Commerce and 40 additional trade and professional organizations to provide a comprehensive solution to compliance with and enforcement of meal period laws.

Committee members of both parties expressed concern that the meal period law in its current form is posing problems for employers and voiced support for providing an opportunity for all interested parties to work together on a solution that contains adequate protections for employers and employees.

Marti Fisher, CalChamber policy advocate, answers questions from the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee on the need to clarify California’s meal period laws.

The CalChamber is encouraged by the committee's response to the bill and will continue to work toward the original goal of the legislation — to provide a comprehensive solution to the challenges faced by employers and employees with current meal period rules across all industries, regardless of employer size or union status.

Confusion with Current Law

Employees and employers are struggling to comply with the current confusing law, which mandates an employee take a 30-minute meal period after working more than five hours.

The law states that a non-exempt employee may not work more than five hours in a workday without being provided with a 30-minute meal period.

This provision, enacted in 1999, has been interpreted in various ways by state enforcement officials and the courts. The confusion has led to costly litigation against California businesses that now may face closure due to exorbitant settlements.

Enforcement Interpretations

The current enforcement interpretation requires the following:

• Employer must compel the worker to cease work during the meal period, which requires the employer to police its workforce, watch the clock to ensure the meal period is taken at the prescribed time, for the entire time, and without interruption. 
• Employee may not voluntarily skip the meal period. 
• Employee may not take the meal period at another time. 
• Employee may not return early, leave late or do any work during the meal period. 
• Non-compliant, independent employee action with regards to the meal period creates a liability for the employer. 
• The conditions permitting an on-duty meal period are so rigidly interpreted that most workplaces which should appropriately permit on-duty meal periods do not qualify. 
• There is confusion over when the meal period should commence. 
• As a result of a recent court challenge (Bearden v. Borax), a collective bargaining agreement does not supersede the statute.

To avoid liability, some employers have had to discipline or discharge employees for not taking meal periods as directed.

Key Vote

Senate Labor and Industrial Relations unanimously approved SB 1539 as amended during the committee hearing to provide an opportunity for ongoing discussions to craft a solution to current issues with the meal period law:

Ayes: Ackerman (R-Tustin), Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), Migden (D-San Francisco), Padilla (D-Pacoima), Wyland (R-Del Mar).

Staff Contact: Marti Fisher

Additional Materials

Labor and Employment