Had a row today with my employer as follows
Some days i might only drive 2/3 hours a day
My truck is not at base these days
so on these days they reckon that i can do a total of 15 hrs work as i only drive 2/3 hours a day and my travel time to and from my vehicle is not included in my working day and that after 15 hours during which the truck has changed location but still not the base they can send out another driver in a company truck and return me to my car and this doesnt count as working time thus by doing this i could possibly work 17/18 hrs a day etc.
now i know that s not true but to get my point accross to them where can i print off the relevant documentation to prove that they are wrong
took a quick look through vosa website but cant seem to see a shortened version of it thats easy to show that they are wrong
- any time spent by a driver travelling to or from a location, which is not the driver’s home or
the employer’s operational centre and where the driver is supposed to take over or to leave a
vehicle in the scope of the Regulation, regardless of whether the employer gave instructions
as to when and how to travel or whether that choice was left to the driver, should be recorded
as either ‘availability’ or ‘other work’ depending on the Member State’s national legislation;
perfect thanks a mill ian
does the following mean your own vehicle or company vehicle or what exactly does it mean
The third is where a vehicle is manned by more than one driver. When a second crew member
is available for driving when necessary, is sitting next to the driver of the vehicle and is not
actively involved in assisting the driver driving the vehicle, a period of 45 minutes of that
crew member’s ‘period of availability’ can be regarded as ‘break’.
Travelling time
In cases where a vehicle that comes within the scope of EU rules is at a separate location that is neither
the driver’s home nor the employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based, the time the
driver spends travelling to or from that location may not be counted as a rest or break, unless the driver
is in a ferry or train and has access to a bunk or couchette.
This is from http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/Transport_Theme_files/Goods_vehicles_tachograph_hours_1111_3.pdf
so they contradict?
nedflanders:
so they contradict?
No they don’t.
Do not confuse a break period with a rest period. They are not the same.
Your boss is wrong. You are correct.
The time spent travelling is time you are spent at work. It cannot be counted as part of your daily rest period.
Bits that I think are relevant:
A driver may reduce his daily rest period to no less than 9 continuous hours, but this can be done no more than three times between any two weekly rest periods
When a daily rest is taken, this may be taken in a vehicle, as long as it has suitable sleeping facilities
and is stationary
‘Multi-manning’ is the situation where, during each period of driving between any two consecutive daily rest periods, or between a daily rest period and a weekly rest period
You are not multi-manning when getting a lift, in order to multi-man you and your co-driver have to be together within an hour of the journey starting
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, time spent travelling to or from that location to take charge of the vehicle may not be counted as a rest or break, unless the driver is in a ferry or train and has access to a bunk or couchette.
THIS LINK is very interesting, regarding the Skills Coaches court case.
And this:
In Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, Farmer, Burley and Denman (Case C-297/99), the European Court of Justice ruled that under Article 15 of EEC Regulation No: 3821/85 of 1985 a driver’s obligation to record all other periods of work extends to:
Time which he necessarily spends travelling (from a point to take over a vehicle subject to that Regulation) which is not the driver’s home or the employer’s operational centre; and
Periods of driving spent by a driver whilst performing a transport service falling outside the scope of Regulation No: 3821/85 before taking over a vehicle subject to that Regulation.
Skills Motor Coaches Ltd operates passenger coaches from Nottingham and employed Messrs Farmer, Burley and Denman as drivers. The Vehicle Inspectorate contended that periods of time spent by Farmer and Burley in driving by car from their home or the coach depot to the point where they took over a coach should have been recorded manually on the coach’s tachograph sheets. Similarly Denman, who on one occasion had done driving work which qualified as a regular national service falling outside the scope of the tachograph regulations before taking over a ‘tachograph’ coach should have recorded that earlier period of driving work on the tachograph sheets for that vehicle.It was contended by the company and drivers that a driver who travelled from his home to the pick-up point for a vehicle could freely choose how he travelled so that time thus spent must be regarded as being freely disposed and forming part of a rest period. The court rejected that argument and held that time spent on activities having a bearing on driving, such as time spent reaching the pick-up point for a tachograph vehicle, would affect his state of tiredness and must be regarded as forming part of ‘all other periods of work’ within Article 15 of Regulation No. 3821/85.
The Court further held that driving time spent performing a transport service also constituted a period when the driver was actually engaged in activities liable to have a bearing on driving, during which he did not freely dispose of his time. A transcript of the judgement is available. Sections 96 and 97(1) create absolute offences for the driver/offender. This is not the case so far as the employers or persons in authority are concerned. There must be evidence upon which a Court can properly infer that an employer gave a positive mandate or some other sufficient act to ‘cause’ the offence to occur. Mere passive acquiescence is not enough - see Redhead Freight Ltd v Shulman [1989] RTR 1. Other recent cases on drivers’ hours include Vehicle Inspectorate v Southern Coaches and Others [2000] RTR 165 and Vehicle Inspectorate v Nuttall [1999] Crim LR 674.
thanks madbaz more stuff to throw at them usually i wouldnt really care its just the way if it was my fault they would make a big deal of it where as if it suits them they will come up with every excuse under the sun
And i can be very head strong at times so the more i have to throw at them the better just to get my point accross 