The statute providing that an employer “shall not require an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period” does not prohibit the employer from requiring the employee to remain on call during rest periods, since simply being on-call does not constitute performing “work.” Thus, evidence that security guards’ employer applied a uniform policy of requiring the guards to remain reachable during rest breaks and to respond when needs arose was insufficient to support summary judgment for the guards on their wage and hour claims. There was evidence that any rest period interrupted by a call back to service could be restarted after the situation necessitating the callback was resolved. Even if an employee did nothing but remain on call all day, being equally idle on a rest break would not constitute “working.” Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.,(Cal.App. 2 Dist.)