ok to sign Working Time Directive form?

zzzLazyDaisy

You are mixing up two issues - health and safety concerning long hours driving, and treating someone to their detriment contrary to WTR.

The EAT was only concerned with the latter. That is to say, in that particular case, did the employer act unlawfully in only offering over-time to employees who had signed the opt-out and refusing to give over-time to those who hadn't. The EAT said, in that case, the employer did not act unlawfully against the people who had refused to sign the opt-out when it refused them over-time and gave it to those who had signed the opt out.

The EAT can only rule on points of law, it has no remit to consider evidence concerning any H&S issues that may have arisen regarding those employees who did accept the over-time.

chainsaw

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

You are mixing up two issues - health and safety concerning long hours driving, and treating someone to their detriment contrary to WTR.

The EAT was only concerned with the latter. That is to say, in that particular case, did the employer act unlawfully in only offering over-time to employees who had signed the opt-out and refusing to give over-time to those who hadn't. The EAT said, in that case, the employer did not act unlawfully against the people who had refused to sign the opt-out when it refused them over-time and gave it to those who had signed the opt out.

The EAT can only rule on points of law, it has no remit to consider evidence concerning any H&S issues that may have arisen regarding those employees who did accept the over-time.

Your right.

I have read the case once but need to read it a few times.