I work retail in a very slow mall and I normally work weekdays by myself until 5 or 6 p.m. I’m very lucky if someone comes in to give me a break. I’m expected to eat my lunch while helping customers if they come in, which is fine except I am not allowed to sit down at all! I understand not being able to sit down while working, but when eating my lunch (which is supposed to be my break) I would love to sit down. Also bathroom breaks are a no-no. Even though I’m there all day, my manager expects me to be able to hold it and gets pissed if I close the store to go. I need a new job! —Break a need?
This article appears in Jul 3-9, 2014.
Not letting you have a break over a long shift and harassing you over bathroom breaks is in violation of labour laws. I’d contact the labour standards board: 1-888-315-0110 or labrstd@gov.ns.ca
OB you answered it. You need a new job, start hunting and good luck.
Yeah… you’re young aren’t you? There are labour laws that govern these very things. Google NS labour laws and download a booklet. Mail it to your employer anonymously. Then sit, eat, piss etc as the rest of us do…
Labour laws may not have been broken. There are employees that are not covered by the rules. Such as; commissioned salespeople who work outside the employer’s place of business. On that note the concept of place of employment is not easily identifiable according to the Labour Board. Place of Employment definitions do not separate activities within the same establishment; each of these is said to constitute a distinct place of employment.
This is a copy and paste from the Labour Standards Code;
An employer does not need to give a break if it is impractical because of an accident, urgent work is necessary or because of other unforeseeable or unpreventable circumstances, or because it is unreasonable for an employee to take a meal break. In these situations, an employee must be able to eat at work unless this is unsafe or unreasonable.
Also;
The rules regarding breaks do not apply to employees who work under a collective agreement. Is this you, OB?
I think the employer would win, but its still a shitty situation.
No Nukka, the employer would not win. The work is retail, so there is no accident occurring, it’s not urgent work, no circumstances except that the employer only schedules 1 person to work the shift.
Labour laws apply where you have to have a 30 minute break so the employee is not working more than 5 consecutive hours.
Hands up who thinks this person should find a new job instead of forcing the employer to schedule them out of the current one.
^^And you’re a judge that has presided over similar cases?
I never centered on the accident part as you allude to, but merely presented a quote in its entirety. So what about this quote “because it is unreasonable for an employee to take a meal break”. That is so open to interpretation you set yourself up for an easy loss.
Also, do we know if its a collective agreement… nope. Everyone assumes the opposite because it helps their side.
I also clearly typed out “I think the employer would win”. I didn’t go out on a ledge and affirmatively say “the employer WILL win” as you have now done.
I get a kick out of you, Bundy. You’re like a know it all barfly. Sit in shadows until you think you absolutely know something that you only heard from word of mouth. Do a five minute search right now, I did……
I know Google is a tough nut to crack, but here you go, Bundy:
http://novascotia.ca/lae/employmentrights/docs/breaksQA.pdf
Just going by the way things are worded, that’s the way the lawyers. It’s retail, no accident, no emerg response, no urgency, no extenuating circumstances other than that created by a douchebucket employer who only schedules one worker for a shift (I suppose we’re led to believe this person was working more than 5 hours… so that’s the assumption I’m going by).
If that is the case, the employee should find another job.
How did you know I was at a bar?
PS, thanks for posting a link I read earlier, sort of upset I took 5 seconds to Google that earlier… And my apologies for posting a comment in a comment board, especially one where it contradicted your interpretation of a legal document.
This is easy :p Go get a another shitty job somewhere else.
And I apologize for commenting on your comment that was directed at my comment.
“contradicted your interpretation of a legal document.” Yes, that makes sense………. Like when you typed “that’s the way the lawyers.”
Uh, commissioned or not, not letting an employee empty their bladder/bowels during a shift is most definitely against labour laws.
But Cranky’s right – they’ll just cut OB’s hours until they are no longer employed.
Get a new job, OB. There are lots of retail jobs out there for people with experience.
My brother worked at a certain book retailer for 10 years and when they told him he couldn’t take a pee break, he quit. I would do him one better and piss in my uniform. Full stream with a satisfied ‘Ahhhhhh…’ emitting from my lips.
I’d do some o’henrys in my pants after eating a few cans of beans the night before and see how well the boss or customers appreciate the nice aroma emanating from the drawers.
Grow ass people don’t need permission to pee or, to sit down to eat a fucking sandwich. Your manager is a fucking idiot!!!
Listen to PK and check with the Labour Board OP (you can speak to them confidentially about your concerns and move forward from there). Even if you don’t make an issue of your sitch (i.e. even if you just move on to a better job with an employer who is actually intelligent and ethical)–your employer will still be on their radar, and that may help the next poor, inexperienced person s/he hires and tries to dupe with bogus rules. Good luck!