If they interrupt you during your mealtime, they have to pay for it.

Many employees of public serviceemergencies or maintenance do not really have a lunch break, but rather they must interrupt that break in their day to return to work and attend to a customer, answer a call or go out to an emergency.

The Supreme Court has established a criterion that can change the way in which many companies count that meal break, which, in many cases, does not count as effective work time, but rather as rest time. a sentence has left no room for doubt: if the employee must be available during meal time, it’s work time and, as such, it must be compensated.

What happened? The labor dispute that reached the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court had its origin in an ambulance services company in Barcelona. Employees were assigned a break one hour a day to eat but, due to the nature of the service, they had to remain contactable and available during that meal time to deal with possible incidents.

The unions considered that this situation converted that time into effective work, given that workers could not disconnect from their obligations and go, for example, to eat at home or to a restaurant. In principle, the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) agreed with the union representatives and annulled the modification of conditions proposed by the company, forcing it to continue considering this break as effective working time and, therefore, to remunerate it.

What the Supreme Court ruling says. The High Court ruled that, in that case, the meal break should be counted as effective work time. The Supreme Court considers that there is no real disconnection of the worker from the company, since he must remain available in case any unforeseen event arises.

To argue its brief, the court distinguishes two scenarios.

On the one hand, if the company guarantees a total disconnection of the employee during their meal break, that period can be considered rest and, in principle, not be compensated as effective work time. On the other hand, if the company cannot guarantee that this total disconnection occurs (for example, because the worker must answer calls, reply to emails or remain available for incidents), that time must be counted as effective working time and included in the salary.

The key: how the day should be counted. In practice, this ruling calls into question a widespread routine in which meal time is systematically discounted as if it were a real break, even when the worker is still available for the company.

The Supreme Court uses article 34 of the Workers’ Statute which defines the working day and specifies that in working days of more than six hours, a rest time of no less than 15 minutes must be established, which counts as effective working time, as well as the fact that the worker is available for the company during that time.

This criterion has direct effects about time registration and on the calculation of the day since, if this disconnection occurs, the working day must stop, but it continues if the employee is available for the company, even if he is not doing the work. in the usual way.

What companies should do. The Supreme Court’s message to companies is that, if they want the meal break not compute as workthey must be able to prove that there is real disconnection, that the worker can freely use that rest time and is not obliged to be reachable or conditioned to interrupt that break early.

In sectors with continuous activity, such as ambulance services, commerce or public services, it may involve reorganizing shifts or assigning relief that allows the employee to disconnect without the service being left unattended. Otherwise, the meal break is considered part of the work day.

Importance of work disconnection. The Supreme Court’s criteria fit with the labor debate about digital disconnection and the importance of rest for workers. The ruling is not limited to saying that the meal “is paid” or “is not paid”, but links that response to a much more verifiable element: whether the worker really has the ability to disconnect or not during that period.

Ultimately, what this doctrine introduces is an incentive for companies to better define what is rest and what is not It is during your work day.

In Xataka | If the question is whether they can force you to work on weekends if you work from Monday to Friday, the Supreme Court gives the answer: no.

Image | Unsplash (logan jeffrey)