oops 
didn’t realise we’d gone to two pages. 
Mike-C:
oops
That’s no problem Mike, cos you probably expected ROG to have posted a page-worth on his own. 
I made sure I shifted this after his bed time. 
dieseldave:
Fostar:
I have put the same question to VOSA what does anyone think of their response?:" I can confirm that there is nothing in the drivers hours regulations that
states that a daily rest reduction can ONLY be made at a drivers
discretion. Therefore your employers are able to REQUEST that you reduce
your rest to 9 hours up to three times per week."Hi Fostar, are you quite sure that you have quoted the VOSA person accurately?
Yes all i have done is highlighted the words only and request. This still doesnt shed any light on the matter though as its just another vague answer on an already grey area.
caledoniandream:
can you explain what the difference between a “week” and " a period between 2 weekly rest periods" is?
i’ll do a favourite example
WEEK 1
work mon, tue - reduced daily rest taken on all 3 days
off wed, thu = full weekly rest
work fri, sat sun - no reduced daily rests taken
WEEK 2
work mon, tue, wed - reduced daily rest taken on all 3 days
off thu - reduced weekly rest
work fri, sat, sun - reduced daily rest taken on all 3 days
WEEK 3
work mon, tue - no reduced daily rests taken
off wed, thu = full weekly rest
work fri, sat, sun - reduced daily rest taken on all 3 days
WEEK 2 had 6 reduced daily rests in it but only still kept to the rule of 3 reduced daily rests between weekly rest periods
As this thread had already got to page 2 then I might as well add to it
caledoniandream:
The whole thing is that it’s nowhere black and white written if an employer can or can’t reduce your weekend or daily rest.
But I still waiting on the first person who comes for a job and states clearly that he won’t reduce his daily or weekly rest, if you think the way as some posters do here, please let it draw up in your contract that you never will reduce you rest…simple as that.
When you get the argument you have a contract to fall back on!If you let people work only 10hours a day, they moan they cannot make the money, if you ask them to reduce their weekly/daily rest they moan they a tired.
You cannot win, either way.This is Transport, and demands change everyday, some times a couple a times a day, so you need flexibility.
Many companies will not employ at this moment because the market is very unstable, so they want to see it on a little longer, if the future the demand keeps groing and stabilise, they will employ (overtime is VERY expensive, but gives flexibility)
You could employ somebody extra, and avoid to ask drivers to reduce their rest, but are the same drivers willing to go back to 35 hours when it get quiet again?
So that this extra person also can get paid? My experience says no on that.As I said before on here, if you look for an 08.00-17:00 job, never work in a pub, a restaurant or be a truck driver.
o/t is very expensive 
if the rate is 7.20 1-10 hrs,7.20 10-15 hrs or 1-15 hrs 7.20 then i cant see how o/t is more expensive, yes if you get x1.5,x 2.00 then yes, but alot call it o/t over 10 hrs but its the same rate so its not costing them anymore p.h
Fostar:
dieseldave:
Fostar:
I have put the same question to VOSA what does anyone think of their response?:" I can confirm that there is nothing in the drivers hours regulations that
states that a daily rest reduction can ONLY be made at a drivers
discretion. Therefore your employers are able to REQUEST that you reduce
your rest to 9 hours up to three times per week."Hi Fostar, are you quite sure that you have quoted the VOSA person accurately?
Yes all i have done is highlighted the words only and request. This still doesnt shed any light on the matter though as its just another vague answer on an already grey area.
Hi Fostar, There is no grey area… honestly!!
The answer you received and wrote above is incorrect.
Please try another phone call to VOSA, then if you get the same answer, ask whether it’s “between weekly rest periods” OR “per week.”
I’m quite confident that you’ll discover that there’s no grey area.
Fostar:
dieseldave:
Fostar:
I have put the same question to VOSA what does anyone think of their response?:" I can confirm that there is nothing in the drivers hours regulations that
states that a daily rest reduction can ONLY be made at a drivers
discretion. Therefore your employers are able to REQUEST that you reduce
your rest to 9 hours up to three times per week."Hi Fostar, are you quite sure that you have quoted the VOSA person accurately?
Yes all i have done is highlighted the words only and request. This still doesnt shed any light on the matter though as its just another vague answer on an already grey area.
No grey area on the first part of the reply, that is 100% correct. The only incorrect bit is the 3 times a week bit which is 100% wrong, you can legally reduce 6 times a week given the right shift pattern.
So definitely no grey, just black and white.
I have just spoken to my Union rep who represented a driver at a tribunal where the driver was sacked for not complying to the TMs order to reduce his daily rest
The tribunal concluded that, because the driver stated that it was more than likely that he would not have enough time to be fully rested before driving, he was in his rights to refuse.
The tribunal agreed that the EU drivers regulations that govern drivers are just that - rules that govern drivers and not the TMs or any other management, however, management must ensure that drivers are not put into any position where they might break those rules to comply with a management request
The rep successfully argued that the wording in those regs that govern drivers have the word CAN in them which means that the DRIVER has that option
The Rep also successfully argued that the spirit of the regs for that word is so that those drivers on overnight stays CAN use that to their advantage as they did not have the same time constraints on them as those at base - such as travelling time to & from work etc etc which actually reduced the amount of time they had available for sleeping
I’m sorry that the Rep would not give me any more info on this (probably data protection) so I could use as proof but perhaps with the knowledge that this is a tribunal case then a clever person might find it - assuming that these tribunal cases are publically accessable ■■?
As this is not a COURT case but a TRIBUNAL one then it cannot be used as a precident
The advice from this Rep - if they want a driver to reduce and the driver does not want to for safety reasons then GET IT IN WRITING - The Rep says this will not happen as no company will put themselves into the corporate responsibilty firing line.
ROG:
I have just spoken to my Union rep who represented a driver at a tribunal where the driver was sacked for not complying to the TMs order to reduce his daily restThe tribunal concluded that, because the driver stated that it was more than likely that he would not have enough time to be fully rested before driving, he was in his rights to refuse.
The tribunal agreed that the EU drivers regulations that govern drivers are just that - rules that govern drivers and not the TMs or any other management, however, management must ensure that drivers are not put into any position where they might break those rules to comply with a management request
The rep successfully argued that the wording in those regs that govern drivers have the word CAN in them which means that the DRIVER has that option
The Rep also successfully argued that the spirit of the regs for that word is so that those drivers on overnight stays CAN use that to their advantage as they did not have the same time constraints on them as those at base - such as travelling time to & from work etc etc which actually reduced the amount of time they had available for sleeping
I’m sorry that the Rep would not give me any more info on this (probably data protection) so I could use as proof but perhaps with the knowledge that this is a tribunal case then a clever person might find it - assuming that these tribunal cases are publically accessable ■■?
As this is not a COURT case but a TRIBUNAL one then it cannot be used as a precident
The advice from this Rep - if they want a driver to reduce and the driver does not want to for safety reasons then GET IT IN WRITING - The Rep says this will not happen as no company will put themselves into the corporate responsibilty firing line.
Which regulations was your union rep referring to ?
I’ve searched the Internet and found no reference to any tribunal decision based on reduced daily rest periods.
Furthermore regulations (EC) 561/2006 only contain the word “can” twice and in neither case is it anything whatsoever to do with daily or reduced daily rest periods
Nor does “COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3820/85” appear to have this phrase that a driver “can” reduce the daily rest period.
So presumably when “The rep successfully argued that the wording in those regs that govern drivers have the word CAN in them which means that the DRIVER has that option” he was talking about some other regulations.
But which ?
I can see this (possibly) heading off into all kinds of problems, so I’ll chuck a quick 2p worth in at this point.
ROG has mentioned an Employment Tribunal case, where the issue before the Tribunal was probably connected with the fairness of something that a company did (or didn’t) do to a driver.
(Given that a company can’t take a driver to an Employment Tribunal. )
An employment Tribunal can be asked by the Applicant or the Respondent (either party to the case) to look at a piece of legislation if it has a bearing on a case that’s before them.
For binding judgements on drivers’ hours legislation, cases heard by the European Court are probably a good place to look.
tachograph:
ROG:
I have just spoken to my Union rep who represented a driver at a tribunal where the driver was sacked for not complying to the TMs order to reduce his daily restThe tribunal concluded that, because the driver stated that it was more than likely that he would not have enough time to be fully rested before driving, he was in his rights to refuse.
The tribunal agreed that the EU drivers regulations that govern drivers are just that - rules that govern drivers and not the TMs or any other management, however, management must ensure that drivers are not put into any position where they might break those rules to comply with a management request
The rep successfully argued that the wording in those regs that govern drivers have the word CAN in them which means that the DRIVER has that option
The Rep also successfully argued that the spirit of the regs for that word is so that those drivers on overnight stays CAN use that to their advantage as they did not have the same time constraints on them as those at base - such as travelling time to & from work etc etc which actually reduced the amount of time they had available for sleeping
I’m sorry that the Rep would not give me any more info on this (probably data protection) so I could use as proof but perhaps with the knowledge that this is a tribunal case then a clever person might find it - assuming that these tribunal cases are publically accessable ■■?
As this is not a COURT case but a TRIBUNAL one then it cannot be used as a precident
The advice from this Rep - if they want a driver to reduce and the driver does not want to for safety reasons then GET IT IN WRITING - The Rep says this will not happen as no company will put themselves into the corporate responsibilty firing line.
Which regulations was your union rep referring to ?
I’ve searched the Internet and found no reference to any tribunal decision based on reduced daily rest periods.
Furthermore regulations (EC) 561/2006 only contain the word “can” twice and in neither case is it anything whatsoever to do with daily or reduced daily rest periods
Nor does “COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3820/85” appear to have this phrase that a driver “can” reduce the daily rest period.
So presumably when “The rep successfully argued that the wording in those regs that govern drivers have the word CAN in them which means that the DRIVER has that option” he was talking about some other regulations.
But which ?
Tachograph, you have to realise that this is Rog, and his favourite encyclopaedia is GV262, bear in mind that this URTU bod is his mate and the VOSA guide does use the word “can” several times.
online.businesslink.gov.uk/Trans … hicles.pdf
So I would take this official MMTM with a pinch of salt
Wheel Nut:
Tachograph, you have to realise that this is Rog, and his favourite encyclopaedia is GV262, bear in mind that this URTU bod is his mate and the VOSA guide does use the word “can” several times.online.businesslink.gov.uk/Trans … hicles.pdf
So I would take this official MMTM with a pinch of salt
How did I not think to look in the VOSA Guide to the regulations
tachograph:
Wheel Nut:
Tachograph, you have to realise that this is Rog, and his favourite encyclopaedia is GV262, bear in mind that this URTU bod is his mate and the VOSA guide does use the word “can” several times.online.businesslink.gov.uk/Trans … hicles.pdf
So I would take this official MMTM with a pinch of salt
How did I not think to look in the VOSA Guide to the regulations
Rog has tried to hide his argument away on PM but this is my reply to him.
But Rog, you cannot use your post as a definitive answer in a court or a disciplinary because the regulations do not say what you or <person’s name removed> said they do. again!
The VOSA guide says one thing, the EC 561/2006 says something different.
I will put this post on the forum as no-one learns from hidden PM’s
The person’s name makes no difference to the validity of the comment, so I had to remove it. dd.
ROG:
I have just spoken to my Union rep who represented a driver at a tribunal where the driver was sacked for not complying to the TMs order to reduce his daily restThe tribunal concluded that, because the driver stated that it was more than likely that he would not have enough time to be fully rested before driving, he was in his rights to refuse.
The tribunal agreed that the EU drivers regulations that govern drivers are just that - rules that govern drivers and not the TMs or any other management, however, management must ensure that drivers are not put into any position where they might break those rules to comply with a management request
The rep successfully argued that the wording in those regs that govern drivers have the word CAN in them which means that the DRIVER has that option
The Rep also successfully argued that the spirit of the regs for that word is so that those drivers on overnight stays CAN use that to their advantage as they did not have the same time constraints on them as those at base - such as travelling time to & from work etc etc which actually reduced the amount of time they had available for sleeping
I’m sorry that the Rep would not give me any more info on this (probably data protection) so I could use as proof but perhaps with the knowledge that this is a tribunal case then a clever person might find it - assuming that these tribunal cases are publically accessable ■■?
Sorry ROG, but I can’t understand your post at all…
First, please look at the part above that I made RED… then next, please look at what you put next in your post:
ROG:
As this is not a COURT case but a TRIBUNAL one then it cannot be used as a precident
This part is spot-on, so why exactly did you post any of it??
For your next question, what could a “clever person” do even if they had the whole transcript and Tribunal Chairman’s notes??
They certainly wouldn’t be able to use it as a precedent.
ROG:
… so I could use as proof …
ROG:
… it cannot be used as a precident …
Sorry ROG, could you just run those two quotes past me again, cos I think I might have missed something.
This part might have made quite a good post on its own though:
ROG:
The advice from this Rep - if they want a driver to reduce and the driver does not want to for safety reasons then GET IT IN WRITING - The Rep says this will not happen as no company will put themselves into the corporate responsibilty firing line.
The bit I wrote as PROOF was to try and prevent the MMTM comments as many might think that was all made up in fairyland and did not occur.
It had nothing to do with the bit in red regarding any precedent
I hope that clears things up a bit
As for the REP using GV262 - I don’t know which regs/guide were used as he said driver regs but as this was a UK tribunal they would probably (guessing) accept the UK version by VOSA.
Had this been a COURT case then I suspect that only 561/2006 could be used and might have gone to the EU for a final ruling - but I’m guessing again as I don’t know the workings of the legal system for this sort of thing.
One thing did stand out whichever regs/guides were used - the rules are for drivers and not employers
ROG:
As for the REP using GV262 - I don’t know which regs/guide were used as he said driver regs but as this was a UK tribunal they would probably (guessing) accept the UK version by VOSA.
Not this crap again, you really are a ■■■■■■■ trumpet. 
THERE IS NO UK VERSION BY VOSA!!! They publish a guide that’s all so the tribunal have ruled on a guide book, sounds a bit dodgy and the company should surely be able to appeal that.
ROG, please provide a link to this UK version of the tacho regulations you are so fond of and which no one else has ever heard of.
This ruling, if correct doesn’t really help the driver in any case because any company could just wait until the driver has refused a few times then get rid of him as being unsuitable for the job. Doubtful the driver could win that at tribunal if the company show he is incapable of working to the regulations governing the industry.
Coffeeholic:
Doubtful the driver could win that at tribunal if the company show he is incapable of working to the regulations governing the industry.
That was the point the Rep won it in - that the driver was working to the DRIVER regs and not the INDUSTRY regs as that would include employers
I am only passing on what was told to me by the rep who represented the driver at the employment tribunal so don’t shoot the messenger please
ROG:
Coffeeholic:
Doubtful the driver could win that at tribunal if the company show he is incapable of working to the regulations governing the industry.That was the point the Rep won it in - that the driver was working to the DRIVER regs and not the INDUSTRY regs as that would include employers
ROG I think you’re digging yourself into an ever deepening hole by talking about drivers regulations as separate to the road transport industries regulations
We’re supposed to be all working to the same set of rules and regulations
tachograph:
ROG I think you’re digging yourself into an ever deepening hole by talking about drivers regulations as separate to the road transport industries regulations
I am not digging any hole - I am simply informing what happened at an employment tribunal which was told to me by the union rep who was there in an official capacity.
I can only repeat what he told me
As this reps details are in the URTU diary then if you wish I can PM them to anyone who wants the info from the ‘horses mouth’
ROG:
That was the point the Rep won it in - that the driver was working to the DRIVER regs and not the INDUSTRY regs as that would include employers
So ROG, is this your own ‘spin,’ or are you saying that 561/2006 is for drivers only?
Could you please tell me the exact name of the INDUSTRY regs you mentioned above?
(Just so we’re clear on this, I mean: What is the name of the INDUSTRY regs that YOU put in capital letters??)
ROG:
I am only passing on what was told to me by the rep who represented the driver at the employment tribunal so don’t shoot the messenger please
ROG:
I am not digging any hole - I am simply informing what happened at an employment tribunal which was told to me by the union rep who was there in an official capacity.
If “only passing on what was told to me” or “simply informing” was all you did, then it might have been a useful contribution to this topic, for example:
ROG:
The advice from this Rep - if they want a driver to reduce and the driver does not want to for safety reasons then GET IT IN WRITING - The Rep says this will not happen as no company will put themselves into the corporate responsibilty firing line.
This (IMHO) is good advice, but surely any sensible driver (in the real world) would also take Neil’s point on board:
Coffeeholic:
… any company could just wait until the driver has refused a few times then get rid of him as being unsuitable for the job.
I’m not one for shooting the messenger, but IMHO you’ve put your own (completely wrong) spin on ‘the message’ more than once:
ROG:
The rep successfully argued that the wording in those regs that govern drivers have the word CAN in them which means that the DRIVER has that option
Are you quite sure that the Rep said that in exactly that way?
I forget just how many times I’ve pointed this out to you in PMs and on the phone, so here it is again publicly…
The Regs (561/2006) are written in a particular ‘European’ style, which uses the words “shall” and “may.”
When reading 561/2006, the word “shall” means that something is non-negotiable, which you can read as being the same as “must.”
The word “may” is used for when the law is giving permission for something, or an alternative to something.
Sorry ROG, but would you please point out where “can” is used in 561/2006 in the context that you’re suggesting?
Then there’s what appears to me to be more of your own ‘spin’ just here:
ROG:
As for the REP using GV262 - I don’t know which regs/guide were used as he said driver regs but as this was a UK tribunal they would probably (guessing) accept the UK version by VOSA.
There you go, loads of your own ‘spin’ AND you even admit to a guess.
By your own words quoting the Rep: “he said driver regs” so why oh why do you need to theorise as to what he means by this?
What you say he said seemed pretty straightforward to me without the stuff that you added theorising about what’s acceptable to a tribunal.
Since 561/2006 is binding law, is it a good idea for a union rep to go to a tribunal armed with a guide that has this disclaimer:
Page #2 of GV262 - 02:
This publication gives general guidance only and should not be regarded as a complete or authoritative statement of the law.
Or do you reckon it might be better to use something that has this in it? :
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States
Which of the two do you think a tribunal might find more persuasive in support of an argument??
I don’t know which one he took and nor do you, but I do know which one I’d have taken.
ROG:
I’m sorry that the Rep would not give me any more info on this (probably data protection) so I could use as proof but perhaps with the knowledge that this is a tribunal case then a clever person might find it - assuming that these tribunal cases are publically accessable ■■?
Sorry ROG, I can see yet more of your theorising on what you were told and why, but I can’t see where anybody asked you for proof.
Did I miss your answer to my earlier question?
dieseldave:
For your next question, what could a “clever person” do even if they had the whole transcript and Tribunal Chairman’s notes??
Sorry again ROG, but due to the amount of ‘spin’ that you seem to have put into ‘the message,’ I’m having some difficulty understanding some of the things that you say the Rep has said or done.
I think some assistance might be required…
tachograph:
ROG I think you’re digging yourself into an ever deepening hole by talking about drivers regulations as separate to the road transport industries regulations
Sorry tachograph, but I’ve looked over the edge and I can’t see him.
Rumour has it that ROG has surfaced in Australia.