30 minutes continuous break – is it a requirement?

Decision in a case concerning employees’ claim for a 30-minute continuous break.

In November 2020, the Eastern High Court ruled in a case concerning whether an employer had acted in violation of the Act on the Implementation of Parts of the Working Time Directive by failing to give an employee a continuous break of 30 minutes. The union’s claim was that the employee was entitled to a 30-minute continuous break. The employee had not had the opportunity to do this, as he had to answer phone calls at the same time as the break was being taken.

As the matter had not previously been presented to the civil courts, the case was referred to the Eastern High Court – due to its fundamental nature.

Employees’ right to a break during working hours

Section 3 of the Act on the Implementation of Parts of the Working Time Directive § 3, states that an employee is entitled to a break when he or she has worked more than 6 hours. In relation to the length of the break, the law states that the break must be of such a scope that the purpose of the break is met.

The High Court’s assessment

In the case, the Eastern High Court concludes that an employee is not entitled to a 30-minute continuous break when he or she has worked more than 6 hours in accordance with the Act on the implementation of parts of the Working Time Directive. Nor does the High Court find that the break should have a specific length. The court finds that several short breaks, instead of one continuous break, are lawful as long as they meet the purpose of the breaks.

What can you as an employer deduce from the judgment?

The judgment shows that as an employer, you have relatively broad powers in relation to planning your employees’ breaks. However, the planning of breaks must be compatible with the purpose of the work. This means that an employer does not need to schedule employees’ breaks, and that the breaks can be largely adapted to the company and its operations.

Read more about employment law here.