A reader shared the following story with a lawyer:
„I worked at a self-service checkout in a supermarket. During work, I had to stand on my feet for a long time because there was no chair at the workplace, although in other stores, employees are provided with such an opportunity.
Read more India strengthens security against satirical “Cockroach Party” protest
It was also said that water could not be brought to the workplace, even if the bottle was marked with a security guard’s sticker and I had a purchase receipt. It was instructed to keep water only in the staff room, in a drawer, and to go there to drink.
However, when working at self-service checkouts, it was often not possible to leave the workplace because other employees were busy. As a result, I had to go several hours without being able to drink water or go to the toilet.
A one-hour lunch break was also promised, in my case – at 13:00, but often the break started much later, around 14:00–15:00. There were also cases when only about 15 minutes were allocated for the lunch break, after which I had to return to work.“
According to R. Joskaudienė, at first glance, some might think: there are rules at the workplace – therefore, the employee must follow them.
However, in labor law, it’s not that simple.
The employer certainly has the right to organize work, establish internal procedures, customer service standards, inventory, hygiene, and safety rules. Especially in a supermarket, where discipline, responsibility for goods, and clear work organization are important.
But internal rules cannot turn into a situation where an employee cannot satisfy basic physiological needs for several hours.
„Water is not a privilege.
The toilet is not a „when there’s time“ issue.
A lunch break is not a formal entry in the schedule.
And the opportunity to sit down, even for a short while, when working long hours standing, is not an employee’s whim.
An employee is not an accessory to a self-service checkout. They are not a device that has to stand in one place until the customer flow ends. They are a human being whose health, dignity, and rest time must be respected even when there are many shoppers in the store,“ R. Joskaudienė emphasized.
In this situation, according to her, it is very important to distinguish two things.
One is legitimate work procedures: for example, the requirement not to keep unmarked goods near the checkout, to observe hygiene, not to leave the self-service area unattended.
Read more In Group I – a true constellation of stars: Mbappe, Haaland or Mane, who will shine brightest?
It’s quite another thing when such a procedure actually means that an employee cannot drink water, go to the toilet, eat, or at least briefly change their body position for several hours.
„This is where it ceases to be a simple „internal procedure“ issue and becomes a problem of labor law, employee safety and health, and proper work organization,“ the lawyer stated.
According to R. Joskaudienė, such situations are not uncommon in the retail sector. „Employees often work standing, serve large customer flows, supervise several self-service checkouts simultaneously, resolve technical glitches, calm dissatisfied shoppers, check age, help with payments, and still have to be polite all the time,“ she explained.
However, according to her, a large customer flow, staff shortages, or an intense work rhythm do not negate the employer’s obligation to organize work in such a way that the employee can actually take a rest break, drink water, go to the toilet, and not work in conditions harmful to health.
Work procedures, according to the lawyer, must not only be convenient for the employer. They must be legal, proportionate, and not violate the employee’s health and dignity.
R. Joskaudienė’s legal insights:
If a lunch break is stipulated in documents, but in reality, the employee does not get it or only gets 15 minutes, this is not just a minor inconvenience. This can be a violation of work and rest time organization.
If an employee is told that water must be kept in the staff room, but there is no real opportunity to go and drink, the problem is not the water bottle. The problem is work organization.
If an employee cannot go to the toilet because „there’s no one to replace them,“ that’s also not the employee’s problem. It is the employer’s duty to properly plan work and ensure a replacement procedure.
Read more Only 8% of Lithuanians have a will: why do we leave this question for the future?
