57

According to this NPR article and this podcast episode (published June 2022):

The French labor code prohibits workers from eating lunch in the workplace.

Is this a real French law, and does violating it have actual legal consequences, or is it only a matter of being shunned by peers?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
Agnishom Chattopadhyay
  • 651
  • 1
  • 5
  • 8
  • 17
    Two answers that were deleted for lack of references were real life experiences of being able to eat at your desk in France. I can't find any study or article that proves that there's no consequences for eating at your desk (well, proving the absence of something is always hard) so I won't edit back my answer. I think it at least deserves to be a comment, as the question clearly asks about real life consequences and not just about the existence of the law itself. – Echox Jun 28 '22 at 08:53
  • 8
    @Echox I would prefer if those answers were undeleted. Can we please bring them back? – Agnishom Chattopadhyay Jun 28 '22 at 09:36
  • 1
    @AgnishomChattopadhyay The claim to be answered is exactly that claim you asked, which is pretty straight-forward. Unsourced experiences and anecdotes are off-topic. – pipe Jun 28 '22 at 10:17
  • 7
    @pipe why prefer the narrowest interpretation of the question? The law is interesting because it affects human experiences. And considering that the users did not lie, they are in fact primary sources! – Agnishom Chattopadhyay Jun 28 '22 at 15:02
  • 7
    @AgnishomChattopadhyay Because you're not on a generic forum where interesting questions are discussed. This website can only refute explicit claims that are stated and can be agreed upon, otherwise it turns into said discussion forum filled with simply opinion and anecdotes, not a website to refute or authenticate claims in a neutral way. Primary sources are generally not allowed, unless perhaps they are french lawyers. – pipe Jun 28 '22 at 15:40
  • 4
    Nowadays, *the work-desk* might very well mean *my kitchen table at home*... – jlliagre Jun 28 '22 at 20:48
  • 4
    @pipe But then you're forcing a situation where there's no answer possible to a pretty reasonable question. Rules are good because they makes things work 99% of the time, but at times rules are not enough and you need to be able to bend or interpret them to makes things work (which is why you usually have judges and stuff). If you blindly apply a rule for the sake of it, then you're not trying to make things work. Anyway, at this point I would advise OP to rename this question "is there a law..." and making a new question "Can you **actually** do it". – Echox Jun 29 '22 at 12:42
  • 1
    I suppose that there were some humorous comments which discussed why someone might want to have lunch at their work desk. Unfortunately, it seems they were deleted. It makes me sad to see that some people think that a little humor is at odds with a discussion about facts. – Agnishom Chattopadhyay Jun 29 '22 at 13:02
  • 1
    @Echox I'm not the internet police. If you're interested in the culinary habits of a country you are free to ask that in any random forum or travel websites. I'm talking about _this website_. If OP changes the question it will be closed as not notable, unless OP finds that it is a widespread belief with a claim that can be refuted or authenticated. If those are not adhered to, this would not be _skeptics_, it would be "ask random internet strangers about their opinions". – pipe Jun 29 '22 at 14:08
  • 3
    Have a read of our "[Welcome to Skeptics!](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users)" to get a better understanding of why this isn't Quora and isn't Reddit. You write "considering that the users did not lie" which is where we differ. People lie on the Internet. Quora and Reddit are full of them. What's different about this site is we demand references to support claims, to make lying much less prevalent. – Oddthinking Jun 30 '22 at 00:04

2 Answers2

89

Yes, it is illegal for an employer to let an employee eat at their desk.

Article R4228-19

It is forbidden to allow workers to take their meals in the premises assigned to work.

It is the employer's responsibility: an employee who would be caught by the labor inspection eating at their desk could not be punished, but the employer could be.

The motivation of this law is to prevent an employer from pressuring an employee to work during their lunch break.

Community
  • 1
Gwen
  • 1,701
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 7
    What does "premises" mean here? Are employees required to leave the premises where they work entirely, or does the French original carry a different meaning? – Jack Aidley Jun 27 '22 at 10:32
  • 3
    Has anyone ever been prosecuted for violation of this law? – Agnishom Chattopadhyay Jun 27 '22 at 10:59
  • 44
    @JackAidley In French: "les locaux affectés au travail", a better translation may be "places dedicated to work", a break room or a canteen are not concerned by this rule. – Gwen Jun 27 '22 at 11:09
  • 4
    @AgnishomChattopadhyay I found [this decision](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000029062632?fonds=JURI&page=1&pageSize=10&query=R4228-19&searchField=ALL&searchType=ALL&tab_selection=all&typePagination=DEFAULT) where 4228-19 is evoked, but it's not directly related (when no room is dedicated to lunch breaks, the employer has to provide "tickets restaurant" that you can use to pay for meals). – Gwen Jun 27 '22 at 11:24
  • 20
    @JackAidley: Not necessarily entirely, if the premises have dedicated places. Article R4228-22 mentions that companies with over 50 employees must provide a dedicated room for eating. For smaller companies, they may either provide it (they don't have to, but may choose to), or employees will go out (home, or to a local restaurant, for example). Although, honestly, in Paris I _have_ seen coworkers eating at their desk in small companies; I wasn't even aware this was forbidden... – Matthieu M. Jun 27 '22 at 17:57
  • 5
    If you read the NPR article, the original motivation of the law was for health reasons. Most workplaces were factories, which were not sanitary places to eat. They didn't have cafeterias at the time, so workers would go out to restaurants to eat. Ironically, the law has been temporarily reversed for health reasons: the pandemic. But now most workplaces are clean offices. – Barmar Jun 28 '22 at 16:49
  • as per @Barmar's comment the part about "The motivation of this law is to prevent an employer from pressuring an employee to work during their lunch break" may be incorrect. the NPR article and podcast source their information from a French Professor who studies laws specific to eating lunch at the desk and their original reasons. – syn1kk Jun 28 '22 at 19:22
  • 2
    @Gwen Slightly tongue-in-cheek (but not entirely), but would a canteen worker be allowed to eat in the canteen they work in? – TripeHound Jun 29 '22 at 05:36
  • @TripeHound If you see how the food is made, you may not want to eat there (also tongue-in-cheek). – Barmar Jun 29 '22 at 14:33
  • @TripeHound that exact scenario also came to my mind. But then I thought that those people usually work short shifts of part time work and won't have to deal with eating at work at all. They may of course be allowed to take leftovers home (unsold food, not stuff partially eaten by customers, obviously). – jwenting Jun 29 '22 at 17:59
  • I've worked at offices in France recently, and people definitely eat in an assigned break room / lunch area, just not at their desks. – user8356 Jun 29 '22 at 22:02
  • @TripeHound The law says a space (room or part of a room) must be designated for eating (and R4228-24 says the employer must ensure it is cleaned, so *someone* has to do some work there to clean it), the law doesn't say you can't work in that space AFAIK. – AmiralPatate Jun 30 '22 at 05:54
  • When I worked at the SNCF offices in a certain southern city, people ate and drank at their desks. – Michael Harvey Jun 30 '22 at 13:19
48

It was previously banned and now it is permitted, as of 2021:

Decree No. 2021-156 of February 13, 2021 temporarily adjusting the provisions of the Labor Code relating to catering premises now allows employees to eat "inside the premises assigned to work" by way of derogation from article R4228 -22 of the Labor Code.

It's a decree with clauses related to Covid, and employers arranging hygenic eating places without congregation at a canteen.

bandybabboon
  • 1,427
  • 8
  • 14
  • Hopefully. Because I know a lot of employers and employees had no choice but to break this rule during the lockdown. I am not sure about the "temporarily" word, however. Are you sure this decree is temporary? I don't see any deadline date in the text, but maybe it is implicit from the introduction of the decree and the references to the other texts, which explicitly mention the covid reasons. I'm not sure how to interpret legalese. – dim Jun 28 '22 at 09:06
  • 1
    Yes it's a temporary degree with clauses related to hygene, and employers arranging hygenic eating places without congregation at the canteen. – bandybabboon Jun 28 '22 at 09:20
  • 10
    @dim Article 3 of that decree states it is limited in time, up to six months after the end of the state of sanitary emergency as far as I understand it. This state of emergency ended on June 1st 2021, however there was a transition period, that has been extended so far to July 31st 2022. So it's a bit unclear to me if this decree is still applicable. What's certain still is that it is indeed temporary. – AmiralPatate Jun 28 '22 at 10:56