Ross v stobart:
The EAT judgement gives the latest guidance On periods of availability.
I have read it and it does not give the latest guidance, the RTD as been like it since 2005 what as been said is the original tribunal did not understand the RTD and called it a “GRAY AREA” that why you had to have a re-hearing, also in your case the company did not interpret the understanding of workstation, and thought you been there and asking to say there was right but, as its states there were wrong, so the case was to be re-heard, If it was that is, because we have not seen any of that case on the web.
You blame the company for breaking the RTD but in fact you have to take some blame, as you know the rules of the RTD and should of known you hours were high, and should of gone to you supervisor to let him/her know of it, and then there could of reduced your hours accordingly.
Result
-
We have, we think, said sufficient to show that the appeal must be allowed and the matter remitted to be re-heard entirely afresh by a differently constituted Tribunal.
-
We think it is highly desirable that a case management discussion should be held first to list carefully the issues which the full hearing will consider and to ensure so far as practicable that all sides are ready for the full hearing.
EAT said above as to be “re-heard entirely afresh by a differently constituted Tribunal”.
So not the EU, not the Department of transport, differently constituted Tribunal.
so show me were in the case it says the RTD is wrong, you will not be able to, but you will be able to show the company was wrong in there interruption of POA
I believe that the judgement contradicts the dft guidance in the understanding by the dft that situations like ,sitting along side a driver in a works vehicle is poa, the worker cab not freely dispose if his time.
The judgement also confirms that being at the workstation,depot or any of the companies subsidiaries.
Like customer depots in a queue is also working time.
You may have a point if your suggesting that drivers like waiting for hours in a queue or basic rest room, vending machine.
Like at sainsburys in stoke.
Its also not practical to leave site as you have to remain on call in case if issues.
Its pretty much work when your at work. Apart from normal breaks.
Obviously all jobs are different.
I’m not suggesting that there are not periods if availability,i’m just suggesting that either knowingly or unknowingly its being incorrectly applied in many instances.
i’m not a Lawer and its my understanding that both the employer and employees are equally responsible for complying with the requirements of the road transport regulations.
Its my opinion that in situations like recording poa by the minute is wrong.
Were not talking about situations like waiting for hours.
Its about recording unlimited amounts of poa at the behest if the employer and with the unknowing driver
Shall we leave it to a difference if opinion.
The road transport regulations are fine.
Its just the,secretary of states failure to adequately enforce the regulations that was the problem
Ross v stobart:
Shall we leave it to a difference if opinion.
Please do, just stop banging on about it.
In the,URTU case the judge said there has never been a breach of the working time regs by anyone or company,that’s in 9years.(1recently)
The judge said no offence at the behest if the employer.
Its says a lot.
I do understand the judgment,and why they lost.
Its because the employees could willingly commit an offence knowing that the employer would also be dragged in to the offence.
As both are Liable.
In law its the driver who commits the offence,and its classed as a criminal offence.
However the regulations contain regulations on employers and holding companies.
the employee normally would be required to attend,a magistrates court for a working time offence.
The employer would normally be given a prohibition or improvement notice.
VOSA don’t appear to enforce the working time regulations as much as the driving time regulations.
Employer cab appeal
Ross ask your self this and then it mite close this thread
before you were call into work for the three days have you ever used POA on a loading bay, have ever used POA in a cue of traffic and have you used POA for your benefit, and as a driver you know what I mean
in your case you never mention it the case
Ross v stobart:
Its just the,secretary of states failure to adequately enforce the regulations that was the problem
the problem with the above statement is that not why the URTU took the case, it was to ask why its not included in the right to take it to tribunal.
Answer is no I have never used poa or break on a loading bay.
And I’ve never recorded poa in a traffic queue.
the urtu case was as you say asking for the,right to go to a tribunal.
That right was not given because if it was the employee could knowingly commit offences knowing the employer would get the blame.
The yeti judgment gives reference to my case in that workers already have the right to go to a tribunal under the disclosure rule.
You know nearly every driver I speak to admits fiddling his calculations so they can work longer and earn more.
That’s why drivers are on low hourly pay,because they can work lots if hours and eventually get a decent pay packet.
The employer knows what’s going on.
Even the dft know what’s going on.
But do the general public know what’s going on.
There should never be any mistake it accident that is or was caused by inattention due to fatigue.
Minister going to admit it.
But face it ,the regulations are being flouted by many,but does that make it ok.
If your at work,on duty,and on call then lets face it,it us part if work.
The poa loophole is being abused and hopefully the loop hole is closing.
It can’t get any worse,so it can only get better.
That’s just my point of view.
I don’t mean to offend anyone.
Is this a poa
I’ve just arrived at a depot, there is 2 trucks in front of me.
I know there is a delay. So I put the tacho on poa and whent for a cigarette.
Whilst having a cigarette for five minutes somebody said I needed to move my truck.
I moved the truck and then rejoined the queue.
I’m now back in the queue, it may move in a few minutes.
When is it a poa.
Can I leave my workstation.
For how long is a poa
Are you talking about recording a minute here and 5 minutes there.
Its like whenever the wheels stop turning its a poa.
Is it.
Lets try again.
Ill put it on poa and go and have a roll up
I estimate 10 minutes.
Well that was a flop ,I went for a cigarette,kept looking over at the queue.
After 7 minutes the queue moved.
What was a poa again
Ross v stobart:
I know there is a delay. So I put the tacho on poa and whent for a cigarette.Whilst having a cigarette for five minutes somebody said I needed to move my truck.
I would use break and its perfectly legal to put it on break co i am the one that decides it if i move again I can put it on break( I am not doing any thing except moving up in a cue
Ross v stobart:
Lets try again.Ill put it on poa and go and have a roll upI estimate 10 minutes
I would use break and its perfectly legal to put it on break co i am the one that decides it if i move again I can put it on break( I am not doing any thing except moving up in a cue.
Ross v stobart:
You know nearly every driver I speak to admits fiddling his calculations so they can work longer and earn more.
thats there choice but are there really doing that or just going along with you.
Ross v stobart:
But do the general public know what’s going on.
There don’t care as long as the foods in the shops.
I don’t know what’s more boring, being stuck on the M1 near J25 or reading Ross v Stobarts’ last couple of posts.
Before anyone asks I’m in the passenger seat.
well as a passenger in the vehicle whist having your period of availability why not throw a lasagne in the microwave and relax not knowing that your beef dish is actually a little bit of red rum.
There is a thought on the general public view on not being aware.
I wonder how long we have all been having a horsey dish and nobody had any idea.
Now everybody seems to care.
Makes you glad to be a vegetarian.
Ross v stobart:
well as a passenger in the vehicle whist having your period of availability why not throw a lasagne in the microwave and relax not knowing that your beef dish is actually a little bit of red rum.
There is a thought on the general public view on not being aware.
I wonder how long we have all been having a horsey dish and nobody had any idea.
Now everybody seems to care.
Makes you glad to be a vegetarian.
Why use ready meals? We get coffee, pasties, cakes, croissants all F.O.C from many of our satisfied customers.
We don’t need to hang about waiting for canteens to open…
we all have freedom to form our own opinion from hearing or reading information about things we see in the papers and news and the internet.
Ultimately its for the courts to decide on the view of the law.
As somebody said before,nobody will ever know the real story apart from the parties involved.
This attempt to draw some attention to the urtu case and Ross v stobart was to try and get a bit of questioning about this POA issue.
There are actually some drivers who don’t want to work up to 80 hours a week.
I know there are a lot of drivers who like long hours.
That’s mostly trampers.
It could be better.