This research was carried out between October 2009 and May 2010 by Department of Labour researchers to identify to what extent the intended policy objectives of the breaks amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000 are being achieved.
The research used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Data was collected through two employer surveys, interviews with employers and employees, and a literature review.
This is “moment in time” research designed to establish a broad picture of how the legislation has been received. It does not cover all sectors and all employee groups. It was designed to obtain an immediate snapshot. It is not, nor was it designed to be, full scale empirical research.
Key Results
Information & awareness: most employers reported knowing about the law change
- A majority of employers stated they knew of the new law. Employers in large and medium sized firms were more likely to state this than those in small firms. Employers who reported knowing of the law found it clear.
- Approximately two thirds of employers received information about the law changes. Common sources of information were the Department of Labour website, mass media and employers’ associations.
- The qualitative research showed employees tended not to seek information about rest and meal break entitlements but could name sources of information they would use if they wanted to.
Changed breaks as a result of the law: Few employers reported having to change breaks
- Eleven percent of employers said they changed breaks as a result of the amendment. A large majority of employers (89%) reported not changing breaks because existing breaks complied with the law, including offering better than minimum conditions.
- The most common changes reported were providing rest breaks more often, and making them longer.
- Where breaks were changed, they tended to be changed for all occupations in a workplace, and were not difficult to change.
- Twenty-two (out of 443) employers reported incurring a cost in changing breaks. These 22 employers were divided over whether the costs incurred were reasonable relative to benefits.
Provision of rest and meal breaks: most employees take their breaks – flexibility was important to both parties
- Employers reported that most employees take their breaks but meal breaks are more commonly taken than rest breaks.
- Flexibility in the timing, duration and incidence of breaks was reported by both employees and employers. However flexibility was more limited for employees (and employers) in health care and education settings where there were regulated staff ratios, and larger workplaces with scheduled break plans such as fast food restaurants.
- The factors affecting uptake of breaks were: workflow, employee preferences and circumstances, workplace culture and behaviour of colleagues, having a designated space away from work, the impact of breaks on total time at work and the possibility of being paid for working through breaks. The employees most at risk of not getting breaks were those in sole charge, particularly in the retail sector.
- Breaks were considered by employers and employees to have generally positive effects, particularly on productivity and morale.