"should not"

[veronihilverius]

"Where an attendance is provided with more than one break the second break may be scheduled at the beginning or end in which case attendance is not required solely for booking on or off .If you only get a single break should not be scheduled at the beginning or end of attendance."

Is it just me or is that worded in a way that if management want to they can .. should not instead of must not? take break at end of duty???
I am guessing this is for people working over 6 hours a day and anything less managers can choose for them to take break at end??

why does so many things in the union leave things open to maniplulation

[fishtank]

I am guessing this is for people working over 6 hours a day and anything less managers can choose for them to take break at end??

No.
It applies to everybody.
Should not/must not/will not/cannot all means the same thing to me.
If you let it happen...it'll happen.
If you don't...it won't.

[veronihilverius]

"should not" can be interpreted as having different meaning to "MUST NOT".

I.e. Managers must not require staff to take their break at the end of their shift (under any circumstances)

Is not the same as

Managers should not require staff to take their break at the end of their shift (unless there's a reason for doing so e.g. Short staffed, busy, sky is blue, grass is green etc).

would u agree with this ?

[fishtank]

would u agree with this ?

No.
Not in the context of the agreement on meal breaks.
If it had meant "should not unless under certain circumstances" it would have said "should not unless under certain circumstances" but it doesn't...it says should not.
If locally your union is too weak to defend that simple position it might be time for a change of personnel.

[UnhappyGremlin]

There is a H&S argument to this.
Going hours without eating, whilst working in a very physical job as we do, can make you feel weak, and affect your concentration and ability to do your job.
You may end up making mistakes or falling ill.