Made to reduce daily rest period

ASK THE EXPERTS SAFETY, LAW AND WORKING TIME DIRECTIVE FORUM (INTE
61

OK - I’ll do it this way…

This is what the union rep told me - short version

He represented a driver at an employment tribunal as that driver had been sacked for refusing to reduce his daily rest

The argument that the rep won the case on was that it was at the discression of the driver and not the employer to reduce that rest especially as the driver had said that it was very likely to cause tiredness from lack of sleep time.

Drivers rules (Unknown for certain which regs or guide was used but the rep mentioned EU regs) were presented and the tribunal agreed that those rules were for the driver and not the employer but the employer had a duty not to put the driver in a position where the rules would be compromised.

Again - if anyone wants clarification then I have the contact details for that rep so please PM me.

62

ROG:
OK - I’ll do it this way…

This is what the union rep told me - short version

He represented a driver at an employment tribunal as that driver had been sacked for refusing to reduce his daily rest

The argument that the rep won the case on was that it was at the discression of the driver and not the employer to reduce that rest especially as the driver had said that it was very likely to cause tiredness from lack of sleep time.

Drivers rules (Unknown for certain which regs or guide was used but the rep mentioned EU regs) were presented and the tribunal agreed that those rules were for the driver and not the employer but the employer had a duty not to put the driver in a position where the rules would be compromised.

Again - if anyone wants clarification then I have the contact details for that rep so please PM me.

Thanks ROG!!

IMHO, it’s uncluttered by theories, nice and easy to understand, it doesn’t need clarifying and it gets the point across perfectly well compared to the other stuff you wrote.

Now I see that you’ve changed your tune a little from where you weren’t sure which Regs had been used, and still no mention of the elusive INDUSTRY regs, or what a “clever person” would have made of it all, but I’ll settle for the vast improvement we’ve had and I’ll not look a gift-horse in the mouth. :laughing: :wink: :smiley:

63

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

There is no such thing as driver regs and industry regs, there are one set of regulations regarding driving hours, rest periods an so on, which are for everybody not just drivers. Ask your self what are the three main reasons for the regulations then ask if all three of them are only for the driver. Seems this union rep, if this story is as reported, got lucky with a tribunal who knew very little about transport and the regulations governing it, if they knew anything at all they would know the tacho regulations are not only for the driver.

Still waiting for a link to these elusive UK regulations ROG.

64

Coffeeholic:
Still waiting for a link to these elusive UK regulations ROG.

Exactly the point that the rep made to the tribunal - they do not exist - only the regs for the driver do

65

ROG:

Coffeeholic:
Still waiting for a link to these elusive UK regulations ROG.

Exactly the point that the rep made to the tribunal - they do not exist

So why do you keep alluding to them then? You constantly go on about this UK version of the regulations, even in this very thread.

ROG:
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

Yet now you say they don’t exist. Make your mind up. :unamused:

ROG:

  • only the regs for the driver do

So it appears you are ditching one set of imaginary regulations and moving onto another? :unamused: :unamused:

How about a link to these driver only regulations then as you have now admitted the UK only ones are a figment of your imagination?

66

Did I say UK driver regs or driver regs ?

I know I said the words UK version but a version of something aint the something and I don’t believe I ever said it was !!

67

ROG:
Did I say UK driver regs or driver regs ?[/quoite]
Both are total BS so neither makes sense.

ROG:
I know I said the words UK version but a version of something aint the something and I don’t believe I ever said it was !!

Have you ever been a politician in an earlier life, you are well qualified to do the job with denials, avoidance of questions and so on.

Yes you said UK version in reference to the regulations the rep may have used but there is no such thing as a UK version of the regulations, so he is either stupid or got lucky with a tribunal who know nothing about transport. I sure as hell wouldn’t be too confident in a union rep who bases his strategy on non existent regulations, you would only have to encounter someone on the tribunal who had half a clue and you have lost. On many occasions on here you have talked about a UK version of the tacho regulations but despite numerous people pointing out you are talking out your arse you have never admitted they are a figment of your imagination.

And you are still avoiding the main point as you dig yourself deeper into a hole. Where is the link to these regulations which are only for the driver and not the employer or company?

68

Coffeeholic:
Where is the link to these regulations which are only for the driver and not the employer or company?

According to the employment tribunal - EU DRIVER REGS 561/2006

69

ROG:

Coffeeholic:
Where is the link to these regulations which are only for the driver and not the employer or company?

According to the employment tribunal - EU DRIVER REGS 561/2006

(EC) 561/2006:
Chapter 1 explains what the purpose of the regulations.
Chapter 2 lays down rules on driving times breaks and rest periods for drivers.
Chapter 3 makes clear the liability of transport undertakings in the compliance of of the regulations.
Chapter 4 allows for exceptions to the regulations and to mainly allows for exceptions by EU member states.
Chapter 5 discusses control procedures and sanctions and lays down rules for both employers and the EU member states.
Chapter 6 headed “Final Provisions” is a general chapter that lays down various rules.

Hardly regulations only for the driver, and as far as I can see there’s nothing in the EU regulations that gives the driver sole discretion on whether or not a reduced daily rest should be taken.

I’d have to say that either you’ve got the story wrong or your union rep was extremely lucky :wink:

70

ROG:

Coffeeholic:
Where is the link to these regulations which are only for the driver and not the employer or company?

According to the employment tribunal - EU DRIVER REGS 561/2006

As I previously said the tribunal didn’t have much of a clue about transport regulations, much like your self. Incorrectly calling those regulations EU DRIVER REGS in your link in an attempt to support your and the tribunals stance doesn’t make it right, you did buy right into that without a moments thought it seems. :unamused: :unamused:

The title and the description of those regulations is right near the top of the first page, no mention of Driver Regs.

I asked this before but as usual you ignored it. What are the three main reasons for those regulations and then ask if all those reasons are solely for the driver? If the tribunal had even considered that for a moment they could not have made the claims they did because if those three reasons are not solely for the driver than the regulations cannot be just for the driver and not the employer.

Hint, one of the reasons is you favourite topic and something that seems to govern every single little thing you do in your life. :wink:

The question under discussion here is a simple one easily answered with no grey area.

Can a company schedule the driver to make use of a reduced rest period or is it the driver’s choice? Purely under the tachograph regulations yes they can and it isn’t the driver’s choice.

The driver can of course say no based on other factors such as tiredness and safety but do that too many times and a company would have no trouble claiming the driver wasn’t suitable for the job and getting rid of them. Probably unfair but while the driver may win the odd battle by claiming tiredness the company will likely always win the whole war.

71

tachograph:
I’d have to say that either you’ve got the story wrong or your union rep was extremely lucky :wink:

One or the other and if it’s the latter I wouldn’t want that rep representing me at a tribunal because his luck will run out.

Based on ROG’s track record though it’s probably the former. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue: He hears something from someone else, doesn’t understand it, or think it through, but latches onto it as fact and then nothing shakes him from that. It’s why it has been so easy in the past to feed him misinformation which he then posted on here and other forums as fact, and still does so from time to time. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

72

Would you like the details of the rep PMed to you so you can check the FACTS for yourselves ?

73

ROG:
Would you like the details of the rep PMed to you so you can check the FACTS for yourselves ?

The whole argument is flawed so there’s probably no point, but to be honest before offering his details to people so that they may contact him you may want to ask your union rep if he minds.

Unless you already have of course :wink:

74

ROG:
Would you like the details of the rep PMed to you so you can check the FACTS for yourselves ?

Again avoiding the questions asked. :unamused: :unamused:

If the facts are as reported then the rep got very, very lucky. If they are not as reported then you are a trumpet and neither of those FACTS need checking as they are pretty open and shut. :wink:

Have you asked him if you can give out his details or are you just doing your usual thing of tramping over peoples wishes regardless?

No point PMing me, I have stopped reading your PM’s and just delete them unopened as more often than not they were either asking me to look at threads I was more than capable of finding myself or asking for information which by doing it in PM goes against the reason of a forum.

75

ROG:
Would you like the details of the rep PMed to you so you can check the FACTS for yourselves ?

Hi ROG, as you’ve already said, the details of the Rep are in the URTU hand book.
I don’t think that, even if we all spoke to the Rep, it would make the slightest difference.

You’ve already said that the case was to do with a dismissal etc, etc.
If the Rep refers to legislation, and the legislation supports his argument, then he’s on a winner.

IMHO, I think the URTU Rep got lucky too, but only because the tribunal can only consider the submissions before it.
The Rep seems to have argued that there’s nothing in the Regs (561/2006) that actually compels a driver to reduce his rest at the company’s insistence.
The reason for me thinking that the URTU Rep got lucky is that the Respondent’s Rep might have missed a trick, because IMHO he could have presented a counter-argument of equal weight, eg: There’s nothing in 561/2006 that says that a company cannot schedule a driver to have a reduced rest. (Obviously, only if the driver has one available.)

From the info given, I just can’t help thinking that the URTU Rep was possibly a bit more switched-on than his opponent on that particular day, but fair play to him and the driver he represented for that. :smiley:

76

That is very possible DD

It would take many more similar cases on this issue to say there was a general trend towards a tribunal making this decision

The only real result for drivers would be if a court case could establish a precedent

77

Using the find tool on the PDF discovers that the word “can” is used twice, while the word cannot is used three times. I find that significant :laughing:

Not wishing to claim the clever person medal I do think I have found the driver regulations that Rog and his team of URTU representatives use.

Drivers’ hours rules: the basics

From this information I gleaned this paragraph;

Drivers must normally take at least 11 consecutive hours of daily rest. This can be reduced by up to two hours on no more than three occasions between any two weekly rest periods.

This guide developed with:

During my research I also came across this from the boss.

Thursday 08 February 2007

URTU regional officer Mike Billingham says the new drivers hours’ rules could mean drivers are pushed to their maximum working limit so companies can avoid recruiting more staff. Billingham says that companies working on supermarket contracts “don’t want to” pay extra for more drivers or temporary agency staff.

The changes under the new rules effective from April 11 state that a driver must show two weekly rests, one of least 45 hours, in a rolling two week period. The other rest can be reduced down to 24 hours if time is made up by the third following week.

Billingham says employers will stick rigidly to a 24-hour rest period for one weekend and 45 hours for the next which means that many drivers will only have a day off in nearly two weeks. “I’m not sure that will do a lot for road safety,” he says.

I feel the URTU could almost be accused of scaremongering to boost their membership, not mentioning that the horse escaped in April 2005 when the Unions could really have made a difference by standing up to the ridiculous RTD and Periods of Availability, especially for the drivers who are not paid for them. But that is for a new thread.

I honestly think this particular thread is at an end, the regulations allow for flexibility on both sides and that is how it should be. A company can ask a driver to reduce his rest, they may even plan him like that as it is their right, the driver may refuse but if he does it too often he could be joining Rog and myself in the big house for our wages. :wink:

78

Wheel Nut:
I honestly think this particular thread is at an end, …

Aw Malc, you spoilsport!! :stuck_out_tongue:

I haven’t quite finished baiting ROG just yet… :grimacing:

So ROG, Here are your questions on your specialist subject of “the Regs for the driver.”

  • Who has to obey Article 10 of 561/2006?

  • Who has to obey Article 11 of 561/2006?

  • Who has to obey Article 13 of 561/2006?

  • Who has to obey Article 22 of 561/2006?

Who has to beep beep
I’ve started, so I’ll finish… :wink:

  • Who has to obey Article 25 of 561/2006?

:bulb: This show doesn’t have ‘PM a friend’ or ‘ask the audience’ as options. :laughing: :wink: :grimacing:

(There are some clues in one of tachograph’s recent posts.) :stuck_out_tongue:

79

i like to say something to the this.

as long as an employer follows the EU drivers regs there is nothing from stopping them from you doing your reduced rests,

  1. A transport undertaking shall organise the work of
    drivers referred to in paragraph 1 in such a way that the
    drivers are able to comply with Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85
    and Chapter II of this Regulation. The transport undertaking
    shall properly instruct the driver and shall make regular
    checks to ensure that Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and
    Chapter II of this Regulation are complied with.

from chapter II of the EU regs 561/2006

Article 8

  1. A driver shall take daily and weekly rest periods.
  2. Within each period of 24 hours after the end of the
    previous daily rest period or weekly rest period a driver shall
    have taken a new daily rest period.
    If the portion of the daily rest period which falls within that
    24 hour period is at least nine hours but less than 11 hours,
    then the daily rest period in question shall be regarded as a
    reduced daily rest period.
  3. A daily rest period may be extended to make a regular
    weekly rest period or a reduced weekly rest period.
  4. A driver may have at most three reduced daily rest
    periods between any two weekly rest periods.
  5. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, within 30 hours
    of the end of a daily or weekly rest period, a driver engaged in
    multi-manning must have taken a new daily rest period of at
    least nine hours.
  6. In any two consecutive weeks a driver shall take at least:
    – two regular weekly rest periods, or
    – one regular weekly rest period and one reduced weekly
    rest period of at least 24 hours. However, the reduction
    shall be compensated by an equivalent period of rest
    taken en bloc before the end of the third week following
    the week in question.
    A weekly rest period shall start no later than at the end of six
    24-hour periods from the end of the previous weekly rest
    period.

so based on the OP post there is nothing stopping an employer from scheduling a work load on the basis of chapter II

and if that make you work longer that it

BUT there still would have to follow RTD(working time for drivers )and make sure you say within the average 48 hours in a reference period and not work over 60 hours in any one week as defined in the RTD(2.4 What is a week?
The working week must start at 00.00 hours on Monday morning, and finish at 24.00 hours on
Sunday.)

all transport companies will make the full use of your time to get the work done.

you as a driver have the right to refuse to do it but, you may not have a job for long

if there keep within the regs you can’t do any thing unless you have a contract of employment that gives you the right to refuse, but I don’t think there is one IMHO

80

this was sent to me by PM but thought this was an open forum so I posted it here

Sorry Del but that had to go. Have a read of the rules and in particular Rule 8 regarding PM’s. Thank you