They also said they were underpaid for their rest breaks because they were only paid their base rates, with piece rates and production bonuses not being factored in.
Workers also claimed that work infringed upon their breaks because of the time it took to don and doff protective equipment when they left and rejoined the production line.
Breaks factored in five minutes for the process, which involved removing overclothes, cleaning, walking to the canteen, going to the toilet, putting on new protective gear and returning to the production line.
While the amount of time each worker took varied, "the weight of the evidence pointed to an inability to constantly take their full [breaks]", the ruling said.
South Pacific Meats "strongly resisted" this claim and provided detailed evidence of the way breaks were taken in the plant, with the entire floor rolling off the production line and heading to breaks when the last carcass moved through the production line.
In the ruling's summary, Employment Relations Agency chief Andrew Dallas accepted all three of the major claims of the meat workers.
It was "straightforward" to accept the submissions of the meat workers that they had not been paid for taking off and putting on protective equipment at the start and end of breaks.
The second claim, that workers were underpaid for breaks, was accepted on the rationale that workers should be paid for breaks as if they were at work.
Dr Dallas found it "surprising" that South Pacific Meats rejected his suggestion of a time-motion study to determine conclusively if work was cutting into breaks.
He ultimately found it was unlikely the plants were stopping long enough to ensure workers took the breaks they were entitled to.
No compliance order was sought by the meat workers.
All parties were directed to work together in good faith to determine if arrears were owing and to find a resolution.
