Rjan:
And that is just the DVSA guidance, which clearly stands to catch agency workers as it is written. The law itself does not refer to the “employer’s operational centre” - the law refers to a workplace which is fixed or habitual for that worker.
Perhaps you could post a link to this law or at-least tell us what law you’re referring to ?
edit: Here’s the exact quote from the regulations and a link so you can see for yourself
Any time spent travelling to a location to take charge of a
vehicle falling within the scope of this Regulation, or to return
from that location, when the vehicle is neither at the driver’s home nor at the employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based, shall not be counted as a rest or
break unless the driver is on a ferry or train and has access to a
bunk or couchette.
nick2008:
You say you can’t see ( much difference ) what difference have you spotted.
Some times it’s the simplest of things that don’t look important but can close the simplest of loop holes
Nothing has changed (that I have spotted) that wasn’t already changed (in law) but wasn’t in the GV262 book. I.e Digital Tacho VU now needs to be downloaded within 90 days - not 56 days. 100km radius for some exemptions (I.e builder with a 7.5t
These changes were already in place.
All this about travel time and working time … Nothing has changed. Some people have the wrong end of the stick - Tachograph has already pointed this out.
As far as I can see the main thrust of the drivers hours regulations remains unchanged, that thrust is; one set of written regulations plus two drivers equals six different interpretations!
Carl Usher:
See my post at 4:19pm - I have highlighted the relevant bits from the text. It’s pretty clear to me. I think you are reading things that aren’t there.
I did note your quotation, but didn’t really understand it. It seems pretty clear to me that, for the commute to be treated as rest, the place travelled to must be the driver’s “employer’s operational centre”, and that such a place must be where that driver is “normally based”.
If the operator is not the employer, and/or if the driver is not “normally based” there, then the commute is working time.
And that is just the DVSA guidance, which clearly stands to catch agency workers as it is written. The law itself does not refer to the “employer’s operational centre” - the law refers to a workplace which is fixed or habitual for that worker.
I’d be interested to understand more specifically where you feel my interpretation is differing from yours. An “agency shift” is, in general, at a temporary workplace, and therefore the commute is working time (albeit unpaid).
Quite simply because of the highlighted statements in my OP : “Where a vehicle coming within the scope of the EU rules is neither at the driver’s home nor at the employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based, but is at a separate location”
The vehicle will be at the employer’s operational centre and that’s where the driver (regardless of employment status) will be going to drive it, ergo the commuting does not count as working time.
“For example: If a driver had to drive for 1 hour by car to pick up a vehicle from a location that was not the driver’s home or his normal operating base then this driving would count as other work.”
Again, the vehicle location will be at the employer’s operational centre and that’s where the driver (regardless of employment status) will be going to drive it, ergo the commuting does not count as working time.
I don’t know why you’re having such issues understanding this. Are you not of English descent per chance?
The vehicle doesn’t just have to be at the employer’s operational centre - which could, after all, be almost anywhere where the employer has work done.
It has to be at an operational centre where that driver is normally based.
An agency worker who has been sent in to a hirer for an odd shift is definitely not “normally based there”. Or, to use the language of the law, it is not the agency worker’s “fixed or habitual workplace”.
scanny77:
unpaid working time is a contradiction. you are on PAID working time or you are unpaid. other than a 45 minute break, if it is on the card then it is paid time. if it is not paid time then it is not on the card and is therefore not working time
“Working time” is determined by reference to whether you are actually working, not to the posterior question of whether you are being paid for time actually worked.
The big win for low-paid workers in Britain following the Tyco case (which arose in Spain), was that having established in the relevant circumstances that the commuting time is working time, the NMW calculation must now take account of it.
EDIT: I’ve looked into this a bit more and what I’ve said above here about the NMW applying may not be entirely accurate - it’s just my recollection of the hype around the case at the time. But that’s not my main interest in this issue, which is about what counts as working time for the purposes of tacho records, rest breaks and so forth.
truckyboy:
so nothing has really changed then…its still a 15 hour day…3 days a week…and 90 hrs a fortnight driving hours, with 80hrs plus per week on duty…and a take home of £400…i might just retire…
This. It’s no wonder young people aren’t even remotely interested in driving trucks. My boy, who is 17, has just started working for Serco at the local hospital, he takes home nearly as much as I do and works a 7 hour day with absolutely zero responsibility.
Rjan:
And that is just the DVSA guidance, which clearly stands to catch agency workers as it is written. The law itself does not refer to the “employer’s operational centre” - the law refers to a workplace which is fixed or habitual for that worker.
Perhaps you could post a link to this law or at-least tell us what law you’re referring to ?
edit: Here’s the exact quote from the regulations and a link so you can see for yourself
Any time spent travelling to a location to take charge of a
vehicle falling within the scope of this Regulation, or to return
from that location, when the vehicle is neither at the driver’s home nor at the employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based, shall not be counted as a rest or
break unless the driver is on a ferry or train and has access to a
bunk or couchette.
Thanks for this link - I see that the DVSA guidance is quoting law, although this particular piece of EU legislation was repealed in 2011. But the Tyco case does not specifically concern drivers or the drivers’ hours rules.
It’s a separate regime which applies to everyone including drivers, like the requirement for at least a 30 minute break after 6 hours work (the WTD break).
As for the point about where the driver is based, please refer to my other post where I’ve addressed this further.
truckyboy:
so nothing has really changed then…its still a 15 hour day…3 days a week…and 90 hrs a fortnight driving hours, with 80hrs plus per week on duty…and a take home of £400…i might just retire…
This. It’s no wonder young people aren’t even remotely interested in driving trucks. My boy, who is 17, has just started working for Serco at the local hospital, he takes home nearly as much as I do and works a 7 hour day with absolutely zero responsibility.
the maoster:
As far as I can see the main thrust of the drivers hours regulations remains unchanged, that thrust is; one set of written regulations plus two drivers equals six different interpretations!
The main reason is that the EU is generally a lot more progressive and workers are better unionised.
The French have the 35 hour standard week for example - each individual worker arguing with employers about whether the 15-hour driver’s maximum work day includes their commuting or not is, I imagine, a question that just doesn’t arise, because unions don’t let it arise.
EU law has done a lot to shore up British employment law in recent years against attack and prevent a Dickensian deterioration in working conditions. That’s why the likes of IDS want us out, so that they can abolish things like the 15 hour maximum (and the attention the employer has to pay to complying with it), and make the working day unlimited in length.
Well, he is a smart lad but all he does is mops the floor and empties the bins… given that I am a “professional driver in charge of a 44 tonne killing machine” and am three times his age, I really ought to be earning a fair bit more than him, but I don’t. Maybe £20 a day more for working twice as many hours.
He wouldn’t dream of driving a truck for a living and if there actually is a driver shortage, and if anybody does ever decide to sort that driver shortage out, then they’re welcome to ask both of us for our feedback.
scanny77:
unpaid working time is a contradiction. you are on PAID working time or you are unpaid. other than a 45 minute break, if it is on the card then it is paid time. if it is not paid time then it is not on the card and is therefore not working time
“Working time” is determined by reference to whether you are actually working, not to the posterior question of whether you are being paid for time actually worked.
The big win for low-paid workers in Britain following the Tyco case (which arose in Spain), was that having established in the relevant circumstances that the commuting time is working time, the NMW calculation must now take account of it.
i am sure the green party will love the fact that you are effectively rewarding people for living as far from work as possible
driving TO work can not possibly be regarded as being AT work. it would be completely unenforceable too because the distance/time spent travelling could not be reasonably established. i would also refer back to my earlier comment that if commuting is working then after a perfectly legal 15 hour shift, i could then not go home because i have no working time left to make the journey. even a politician could work that one out for themselves
scanny77:
unpaid working time is a contradiction. you are on PAID working time or you are unpaid. other than a 45 minute break, if it is on the card then it is paid time. if it is not paid time then it is not on the card and is therefore not working time
“Working time” is determined by reference to whether you are actually working, not to the posterior question of whether you are being paid for time actually worked.
The big win for low-paid workers in Britain following the Tyco case (which arose in Spain), was that having established in the relevant circumstances that the commuting time is working time, the NMW calculation must now take account of it.
i am sure the green party will love the fact that you are effectively rewarding people for living as far from work as possible
driving TO work can not possibly be regarded as being AT work. it would be completely unenforceable too because the distance/time spent travelling could not be reasonably established. i would also refer back to my earlier comment that if commuting is working then after a perfectly legal 15 hour shift, i could then not go home because i have no working time left to make the journey. even a politician could work that one out for themselves
I’ve literally just addressed a possible mistake about NMW applying in an edit to my earlier post. It seems people do not have to be paid NMW for such work. That was obviously hype I heard.
That said, driving to work I would say quite clearly is work in an informal sense - especially if you’re a driver! The Tyco case confirms that, as regards workplaces that are not fixed or habitual, it is part of your work in a formal sense also.
As for a 15 hour shift, you could travel home from a fixed workplace after 15 hours at the workplace. For an unfixed workplace, your calculation of the 15 hours must incorporate the commute there and back. It is your responsibility to plan your working hours and journeys to comply with the law - and the dispensations in relation to unforeseeable events may apply if your best laid plans go awry.
The law may well be unenforceable if you don’t manually record the commuting time on the tacho (and if the DVSA don’t get wind, or don’t care, that you were commuting to an unfixed workplace), but that’s the case with any working time that requires manual entry (like having a second, non-transport job on your days off driving, or driving the work’s 3.5t van for part of the day).
It’s a separate regime which applies to everyone including drivers, like the requirement for at least a 30 minute break after 6 hours work (the WTD break).
There is no requirement for a 30 minute break for everyone, people working to the WTR 1998 are entitled to a 20 minute break if they’re working more than 6 hours.
It’s a separate regime which applies to everyone including drivers, like the requirement for at least a 30 minute break after 6 hours work (the WTD break).
There is no requirement for a 30 minute break for everyone, people working to the WTR 1998 are entitled to a 20 minute break if they’re working more than 6 hours.
I’ll read the document more tomorrow.
The link to the 2006 legislation says it was repealed in 2011 - presumably superseded by other legislation.
I take your point about the 20 minute break.
One relevant piece of national legislation seem to be this (which implements EU legislation in turn):
Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005 … tents/made
Having read that legislation, the answer to this question remains unclear. I have to bear in mind that the Tyco case was not a judgment on the EU legislation which underlies the RTR(WT) Regs (or the Community Drivers’ Hours Regulations).
But I don’t see why what is working time for a non-HGV-driving worker undertaking Tyco commuting to an unfixed workplace, would not be working time for a HGV driver in the same circumstances. It is also definitely not “rest” for the purposes of a “daily rest period” in the CDHR.
Oddly, because of the different pieces of legislation involved, Tyco commuting would have to be recorded as “other work” on the tacho, even if it were not “working time” within the definition of the RTR(WT) Regs and did not count towards the 60 hour weekly maximum.
i live 35 minutes to an hour from work (depending on time and route) but my mate lives 5 minutes away. i went to visit him on my way home. prove otherwise!
Carl Usher:
See my post at 4:19pm - I have highlighted the relevant bits from the text. It’s pretty clear to me. I think you are reading things that aren’t there.
I did note your quotation, but didn’t really understand it. It seems pretty clear to me that, for the commute to be treated as rest, the place travelled to must be the driver’s “employer’s operational centre”, and that such a place must be where that driver is “normally based”.
If the operator is not the employer, and/or if the driver is not “normally based” there, then the commute is working time.
And that is just the DVSA guidance, which clearly stands to catch agency workers as it is written. The law itself does not refer to the “employer’s operational centre” - the law refers to a workplace which is fixed or habitual for that worker.
I’d be interested to understand more specifically where you feel my interpretation is differing from yours. An “agency shift” is, in general, at a temporary workplace, and therefore the commute is working time (albeit unpaid).
Quite simply because of the highlighted statements in my OP : “Where a vehicle coming within the scope of the EU rules is neither at the driver’s home nor at the employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based, but is at a separate location”
The vehicle will be at the employer’s operational centre and that’s where the driver (regardless of employment status) will be going to drive it, ergo the commuting does not count as working time.
“For example: If a driver had to drive for 1 hour by car to pick up a vehicle from a location that was not the driver’s home or his normal operating base then this driving would count as other work.”
Again, the vehicle location will be at the employer’s operational centre and that’s where the driver (regardless of employment status) will be going to drive it, ergo the commuting does not count as working time.
I don’t know why you’re having such issues understanding this. Are you not of English descent per chance?
The vehicle doesn’t just have to be at the employer’s operational centre - which could, after all, be almost anywhere where the employer has work done.
It has to be at an operational centre where that driver is normally based.
An agency worker who has been sent in to a hirer for an odd shift is definitely not “normally based there”. Or, to use the language of the law, it is not the agency worker’s “fixed or habitual workplace”.
Nope. You’re just splitting hairs for the sake of it now. Read the rules and understand them as they’re written rather than forming your own (incorrect) interpretations. I’m out.
Right then, so the ‘powers that be’ make a decision to review the rules…fantastic.
Bring it on I say…a golden opportunity to both simplify, and maybe even reduce the excess hours that we are expected to do (that are only on par with top Doctors who make 5 times as much as us to compensate)
But hey no, surprise surprise, they succeed in only making it more restrictive, and costlier to the agency guys travelling to work (think I got that right, got bored reading it ) but even worse…, MORE complicated and intricate, so much so, that the only ones that can fully understand it, as illustrated on here, are the ones who make a living by teaching it, and the clinically obsessed that embrace this crap to the point of ■■■■■■.
I would think and probably hope that seeing as most members on here have not commented, that they may, or may not be probably like me,
ie… can not be arsed with all the crap, and rely (and succeed) in managing to stay legal on a ‘need to know basis’ concerning rules, rather than a ‘chapter and verse knowing basis’
In a nutshell more complete ■■■■■■■■ to contend and deal with, or have I got it wrong.
scanny77:
i live 35 minutes to an hour from work (depending on time and route) but my mate lives 5 minutes away. i went to visit him on my way home. prove otherwise!
as i said, it is completely unenforcable!
If they were trying to enforce it against an uncooperative driver, wouldn’t they just ask the operator for records?
This would show the frequency of your attendance and vehicles used, as well as your use of other operators’ vehicles from your driver card (hence establishing whether it is your fixed or habitual workplace). If your pattern of attendance shows an unfixed workplace, they would ask you to account for your commuting time. If there is no record of the commute, or if the operator isn’t even asking the question, then it’s a recording offence anyway.
I would say if you visit a friend on the way home, then that is a period of break until you resume the journey home. Otherwise, every commercial journey could be characterised as a series of journeys to visit friends at cafés and truck stops.
Carl Usher:
Nope. You’re just splitting hairs for the sake of it now. Read the rules and understand them as they’re written rather than forming your own (incorrect) interpretations. I’m out.
I have read the rules, and they seem clear to me. I’m not clear where you disagree. The difference between a fixed and unfixed workplace isn’t a split hair.
) but even worse…, MORE complicated and intricate, so much so, that the only ones that can fully understand it, as illustrated on here, are the ones who make a living by teaching it, and the clinically obsessed that embrace this crap to the point of ■■■■■■. 
