again, an area that i am not overly familiar with since it is unusual for us.
if i am at home, do i have the right to refuse to reduce a daily rest period?
if taken, do i need to make it up at the weekend? ie 2 reduced rest periods = minimum 40 hour weekly rest
No you don’t have the right to do so.
From the VOSA site
Who is responsible for reducing my daily rest? Do I have a choice?
Your employer is responsible for scheduling his employees’ work and arranging when shifts must begin and end. It is for your employer to schedule your work so that rest periods are taken in accordance with the EC rules.
Of course there are ways round this.
For reductions to daily rest periods you can compensate by adding them to either a daily or weekly rest period, of at least 8 hours, and you don’t even have to compensate for them in one block, you can do it in several periods of at least 1 hour if you wish.
Hi
I disagree, that doesn’t state that the company has the right to reduce your daily rest at best that is ambiguous, I got chatting to a driver just today and he has said there is unrest at his depot about this sort of stuff where the company are trying to reduce a drivers weekly rest period below the minimum 45 required, they have looked into this and contacted the FTA and Vosa and they state there is no written documentation to say who can do what except that it should be an agreement between employer and employee.
Take a scenario of a company forcing a driver to reduce his weekly break with the threat of a discipline if he refuses.
The driver has been given a rota stating the following days he is required to work (this is the rota that he said is in dispute)
Work Monday
Work Tuesday
Work Wednesday
Work Thursday
Work Friday
Rest Saturday
Work Sunday
Rest Monday
Work Tuesday
Work Wednesday
Work Thursday
Work Friday
Rest Sat
Rest Sun
The driver is naffed off because he doesn’t want to reduce and puts it in writing to words of that effect, the company say your doing it tough **** buster or your out of here. So the driver reduces under protest, in the course of his duties on Sunday his vehicle is involved in an RTA, the investigation concludes driver fatigue and being tired played a big factor in the RTA, the driver gets prosecuted, in the court case it comes to light that the driver followed the company’s grievance procedure over his concerns about being forced to reduce which fell on Deaf ears.
Surely the company would be up for prosecution too for failing in their duty of care to the driver, and ignoring his concerns. What do you think ?
manny:
I disagree, that doesn’t state that the company has the right to reduce your daily rest at best that is ambiguous
Actually we are not in disagreement. I never stated in my previous post that the company has the right to force you to reduce your rest. I said that scanny77 doesn’t have the right to refuse to reduce his weekly rest. As you rightly point out it is ambiguous and there is nothing that backs either side. Just as the company has no legal basis to force you to reduce rest, there is nothing in law giving the driver the right to refuse, so the answer the original question, “Do I have the right to refuse to reduce a daily rest period,” is no.
I also pointed out that there are ways you could avoid attempts to force you to reduce your rest, and one example would indeed be your option of putting in writing that he felt too fatigued to drive, thereby putting the company in a dodgy legal position should an accident occur.
Sorry CoffeeHolic
Always getting the wrong end of the stick, one of my many traits
Manny
In my opinion this all boils down to a Health and Safety issue.
If you feel after a reduced break that you are to fatigued to drive then don’t. i dont think anyone can argue otherwise, the Police, Vosa and the Health and safety executive would not take kindly to any employer forcing an employee to drive if it wasn’t safe.
Not forgetting also the HSE publication “Driving at Work” which puts upon every employer a duty to consider the safety of any employee who drives (or rides) in the course of their employment, and the safety of the public in general.
Read it. Download it. Highlight relevant sections, and then present it to them.
Well this company has been forcing its drivers to reduce with the threat of disciplinary action for refusing a reasonable management request, not only at the depot my mate works for but also at other DC’s, should really name and shame the company but I think it would have a back lash from them somewhere along the line, I have to add it isn’t the company that he hauls for, they seem ok, pretty driver orientated it’s the company who have the distribution contract that are doing it, seems 2 DC’s are run by complete idiots as TM’s and the usual sort of transport clerks with attitudes (not saying all are like that, known a few good ones in my time as a driver) that haven’t realised you should realy get the drivers on-side to get the best out of them.
I’ll have to get him to join this site to explain a bit more but from what I can gather the Shop Stewards have signed up to all manner of things without telling the members and they have both been taken out on a jolly up at a hotel with the GM of that depot for pushing it all through, sneaky ******** must look good on his expenses sheet, wonder what the share holders would think let alone the 400 or so people they’ve just made redundant.
Power breads corruption in my book and I cant stand the way drivers get dumped on by these sort of people, anyway what goes around comes around both stewards have been voted out, he tells me they have a new man in place, who has already been trawling through what the other steward has signed away. Got his work cut out that’s for sure.
manny:
Well this company has been forcing its drivers to reduce with the threat of disciplinary action for refusing a reasonable management request, not only at the depot my mate works for but also at other DC’s, should really name and shame the company but I think it would have a back lash from them somewhere along the line, I have to add it isn’t the company that he hauls for, they seem ok, pretty driver orientated it’s the company who have the distribution contract that are doing it, seems 2 DC’s are run by complete idiots as TM’s and the usual sort of transport clerks with attitudes (not saying all are like that, known a few good ones in my time as a driver) that haven’t realised you should realy get the drivers on-side to get the best out of them.I’ll have to get him to join this site to explain a bit more but from what I can gather the Shop Stewards have signed up to all manner of things without telling the members and they have both been taken out on a jolly up at a hotel with the GM of that depot for pushing it all through, sneaky ******** must look good on his expenses sheet, wonder what the share holders would think let alone the 400 or so people they’ve just made redundant.
Power breads corruption in my book and I cant stand the way drivers get dumped on by these sort of people, anyway what goes around comes around both stewards have been voted out, he tells me they have a new man in place, who has already been trawling through what the other steward has signed away. Got his work cut out that’s for sure.
Can i have one guess? oh please just one little guess?.
Is it Ex-hell?.
It must be with this statement
threat of disciplinary action for refusing a reasonable management request
Jammy heres my lotto numbers 4,8,12…4…2 and 18
manny:
Well this company has been forcing its drivers to reduce with the threat of disciplinary action for refusing a reasonable management request.
Basically, any person taking to the road whilst knowingly unfit, either through drink, illness, medication, or tiredness is committing an offence of Reckless Driving, which is an imprisonable offence. I could probably find a stated case on the subject but that would take some time.
What is probably of more relevance is the Aiders and Abettors Act 1861
Whoseoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.
Which would render any member of management, and any driver’s representative, or any person negotiating on behalf of employees, equally culpable.
Ask them how they like to take their porridge. 