EmpleoPregunta 930 de 1632

During a busy roofing day, a foreman tells a crew they must eat lunch at their posts and remain on call to answer questions. Even though they got 30 minutes to eat, why might this still be a meal-period violation?

a.The meal was not duty-free; workers stayed on call
b.Meal periods cannot be violated when food is provided
c.It is a violation only if the break ran under 45 minutes
d.There is no violation because the time was paid

Explicación

A compliant meal period under Labor Code §512 must be off duty: the employee is relieved of all duty, free to leave the premises, and free to use the time as they wish. Keeping the crew at their posts to answer questions converts the break into an on-duty meal period, lawful only where the nature of the work prevents relief and the employee has signed a revocable written on-duty agreement - and the premium under §226.7 is owed even though a full 30 minutes elapsed. (b) treats providing lunch as compliance; feeding the crew is not relieving them. (c) invents a 45-minute floor; the statutory period is 30 minutes. (d) confuses the on-duty meal period, which must be paid, with a compliant off-duty one, which is unpaid - paying for the time is a consequence of the violation, not a cure for it.

Referencia Legal: Labor Code §§512(a), 226.7; IWC Wage Order 16, §10

Practica las 1632 preguntas gratis — sin registro.

Own the complete CSLB Law & Business guide — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 →

Preguntas relacionadas de este tema

Última revisión: · proceso editorial

Equipo de PrepPass · Verificado con California CSLB Contractor License Law & Business Exam · Cómo revisamos
Revisado por Abraham Chen — Licensed California General Contractor (CSLB License #1101856 — verificar)
Reportar