California Day of Rest Requirement

While the decision leaves room for interpretation of what constitutes “cause,” there are steps employers can take to protect themselves, Rappaport said. For example, they may have a registration form for employees who want to work extra days, and the sheet could indicate that the work is voluntary and not a requirement for employment. California law also states that an employer cannot “induce” an employee to give up the day off, and the state Supreme Court has weighed what “cause” means. Article 551 of the Labour Code states: “Everyone employed in an employment occupation has the right to a day of rest in seven years.” Article 552 states: “No employer may employ his employees more than six days a week. (Emphasis added.) The second question examined by the Court concerned the correct interpretation of Article 556 of the Labour Code, which exempts employers from the application of the rest day requirement laid down in Articles 551 and 552 of the Labour Code `if the total number of hours of employment does not exceed 30 hours per week or six hours per day of employment`. The employer argued that, under Article 556 of the Labour Code, the day of rest provided for in Articles 551 and 552 does not apply to employees who: (1) work 30 hours or less during a working week; and (2) work six hours or less on one of the working days of that work week. On the other hand, the employees argued that, in order for the employer to benefit from the exemption provided for in article 556 of the Labour Code, the employee may not only work more than 30 hours per week, but may also not work more than six hours every working day of that working week. The court ruled in favour of the workers and ruled that the exception in section 556 of the Labour Code applies only if the employee`s hours of work are six hours or less for all working days of that work week. The third and final question concerning the Court`s solution concerned the interpretation of the meaning of the term `cause` within the meaning of Article 552 of the Labour Code (“No employer may induce his employees to work more than six days a week”). The court asked the question: “What does it mean for an employer to cause an employee to give up a day off (§ 552): violence, coercion, pressure, schedule, encouragement, reward, approval or something else?” With respect to this third issue, the plaintiffs argued that whenever an employer “allows, suffers or allows” an employee to work for a seventh day, it “makes” the employee work. The employer stated that unless it “requires, forces or forces seventh-day work,” it does not “induce” the employee to work. The court rejected both the meaning of “caused” to the work claimed by the employees and the employer.

On the contrary, the Court held that “it is for the employer to inform workers of their right to a day of rest and, subsequently, to maintain absolute neutrality with regard to the exercise of that right”. The court further noted that “an employer cannot encourage its employees to give up rest or hide the right to rest, but is not liable simply because the employee chooses to work on a seventh day.” In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court ruled today that California law, which requires one of seven days off, only considers the work week defined by the employer to determine the applicable period to be analyzed for compliance and liability purposes and does not explicitly require employers to provide a day off after six previous calendar days of work. This decision is a great relief for employers who plan employees week after week, without necessarily taking into account when the employees worked the previous week, and provides a clear and direct way for employers to comply with the state labor code. With respect to the scope of the part-time exclusion under section 556, however, the court sided with the plaintiffs. Nordstrom argued that as long as an employee receives at least one work day of no more than six hours during the work week, the employee may have to work every seven days without a day off. The Court considered that this interpretation was inappropriate. He noted that the exemption only applies to those who do not exceed six hours of work during one of the seven days of the week. Rest time is defined as ten “net” minutes, which means that the rest period begins when the employee reaches an area outside the work area that is suitable for leisure. Employers are required to provide appropriate rest facilities available to employees during working hours in an area separate from the toilet. As regards the concept of `day of rest out of seven`, the Court held that one day of rest is guaranteed for each working week. Periods of more than six consecutive working days extending over more than one working week are not prohibited per se.

If an employer does not grant an employee a rest period under an applicable IWC order, it will pay the employee one hour of additional wages at the employee`s standard wage rate for each day of work where the rest period is not provided. Section 226.7 Therefore, if an employer does not provide for all the required rest periods on a working day, the employee is entitled to an hour of additional pay for that day of work, and not to an hour of additional wages for each rest period not granted during that working day. However, you should be careful to check whether you have relied on the assumption that any shift of less than six hours per work week will exempt you from the one-day rest period provided for in the Rule of Seven; As today`s holding company specifies, all of the employee`s shifts during the work week must be less than six hours or the total number of hours in the work week less than 30 for the exemption to apply. California Labor Law requires companies to give employees at least 1 in 7 days off and prohibits companies from “making their employees work” more than 6 days a week. The code provides an exception to these rules if an employee works 30 hours or less per week or less than 6 hours per day per week. On Monday, May 8, 2017, in the case of Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., the California Supreme Court, clarified the following issues: (1) are the 6 days calculated on a continuous basis or on the “work week” defined by the employer, (2) to qualify for the exemption, each day worked in the week must be less than 6 hours, and (3) what does it mean to cause an employee to: to work more than 6 days out of 7? The California Supreme Court ruled that Nordstrom had argued that “to cause” means “to force” or “to demand,” but the court said the interpretation was too narrow because there are many ways for an employer to implicitly require employees to give up a day off, she explained. Nordstrom`s established work week ran from Sunday to Saturday. Both plaintiffs claimed that Nordstrom sometimes scheduled them for seven or more consecutive days. They argued that rest day laws should prohibit Nordstrom from allowing employees to work on a continuous basis for seven consecutive days, whether or not those days exceeded two calendar weeks or “work weeks.” Otherwise, the plaintiffs argued, Nordstrom could require them to work up to 12 days in a row, from Monday in the first week to Friday in the following week.

The Ninth Federal District, puzzled by the ambiguities of California`s rest day law, asked the state Supreme Court to answer several questions. In its unanimous response, the Court of Justice issued three decisions: the Court then ruled that the exemption applies to workers who work shifts of six hours or less only to those who do not exceed six hours of work on any day of the working week. If an employee works more than six hours a day during a work week, a day of rest must be provided during that work week, subject to other exceptions. The court`s decision provides clear guidance to employers who require workers to work more than six consecutive days. For example, employers who must provide for employees to work more than six consecutive days may do so if the days are spread over two weeks of work. Second, if an employer attempts to legally require an employee to work seven consecutive days during a work week, it may limit an employee`s hours of work to a maximum of 30 hours in the work week and no more than six hours per work day (e.g., seven four-hour shifts in a work week). Third, if the employer is seeking the flexibility to allow employees to work more than six consecutive days during a work week (which may result in daily or weekly overtime), the employer should consider submitting a form to employees for signature showing that the employee understands that he or she is entitled to a day off on that day. if the employee voluntarily asks to work the extra day without the employer asking for it, and there is no retaliation from the employer, the employee should choose to take his or her day off, which is a protected claim.

Zeen is a next generation WordPress theme. It’s powerful, beautifully designed and comes with everything you need to engage your visitors and increase conversions.

Top 3 Stories

More Stories
Which of the following Is True of the Basis of the U.s. Legal System