Working time directive question

chainsaw

buggy_boy wrote: »

Hey Guys,

Ok with your help I have managed to find a solution which basically stumps my employer. Ok so here is the argument.

I work 9-5, that is my normal working day. That means between the end of my day and the start of my next day I am entitled to 11hrs continuous sleep, regardless of oncall or not as WTD being law overides the fact im oncall.

Ok so this effectively means I cant get called out between 10pm and 4am as that would not allow me to have 11hrs sleep period. Employers should not be putting shift systems in place that would break WTD rest periods which is basically what they have done. This has been accepted in the past and flexibility has been given because we got paid for our sleep period, with the getting rid of paid for sleep, flexibility can go out the window.

The only way round this is for the employer as some have stated to have a shift rota, however after the number of redundancies there is no way this is practical and they would have to pay us an uplift to go onto a shift pattern.

This basically forces the companies hand making the status quo the best solution.

That's good news and good use of the WTR if you have managed to use it to protect your position.

Using the WTR is not about either side trying to make the other side stick to the letter of the law however most employers, like yours, would be worse off if they had to stick to the letter of the law which makes it a useful tool to make employers be more reasonable. If the WTR were not in place employers could just steam roll anything in.

By the way, just for information it is not the WTD that applies to us but the (WTR) working time regulations.

chainsaw

zagfles wrote: »

Excellent - sounds good! Some managers do need educating that flexibility works both ways. You're flexible with the WTD and they flexible about paying you for rest periods.

That's a strange analysis. I thought his employer was being inflexible trying to make him work a considerable number of extra hours during the day or deduct money off him if he slept in the following day. Then BB told him about the WTR and his employer backed down only because he had no choice.

As I see it BB is the only reasonable / flexible person in this story. His employer is lucky BB does not insist on working to the letter of the WTr after the fast one his employer tried to pull.

I think his employer is a classic example of someone reading the WTR and cherry picking the bits they like without understanding the whole document.

chainsaw

clairec79 wrote: »

I thought there was something in the WTD that said if the 11hour break could not be met (this may only apply to 24hour services though) that providing you had a 48hour break a fortnight it was ok for the 11hour ruling to be broken.

My understanding is that you have to have a full 24hr break in 7 days or 48hrs in 14 days. This has nothing to do at all with the 11 hr rule.

There is a list of occupations that are excluded from the 11 hr rule. When you examine this list it is so log and vague it could include anyone. It comes down to interpretation again.

If a fireman is in the middle of putting out a fire then it would be unreasonable for him to leave the scene so he could have 11hrs rest. He would however need compensatory rest when he finally finished his shift. Even though a fireman may have to break the 11 hr rule from time to time this does not mean shift patterns can be designed so poorly or deliberately to cause the fireman to have to break the 11 hr rule.

on the other hand there is no need for someone working on the checkout desk at a big supermarket to break the 11 hr rule. They can just pack up and go home.

zagfles

chainsaw wrote: »

That's a strange analysis. I thought his employer was being inflexible trying to make him work a considerable number of extra hours during the day or deduct money off him if he slept in the following day. Then BB told him about the WTR and his employer backed down only because he had no choice.

You seem to misinterpret everything! Of course the employer was being inflexible. That was my point!

As BB said "Employers should not be putting shift systems in place that would break WTD rest periods which is basically what they have done."

He is accepting this, therefore being flexible. In return, he has "educated" his management that flexibility works both way, and they are paying him for rest in the day when they don't have to.

That's a very long winded version of what I wrote. I thought I'd keep it short as there's already been lots of hot air in this thread

As I see it BB is the only reasonable / flexible person in this story. His employer is lucky BB does not insist on working to the letter of the WTr after the fast one his employer tried to pull.

Well some would claim he and his employer (and me and my employer) have no choice but to stick to the letter of the WTD. But for both of us common sense prevails.

By the way you may be interested in the other thread on the WTD in this forum which has just had an interesting update...as you're interested in case law on this subject.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3336482

chainsaw

zagfles wrote: »

You seem to misinterpret everything! Of course the employer was being inflexible. That was my point!

As BB said "Employers should not be putting shift systems in place that would break WTD rest periods which is basically what they have done."

He is accepting this, therefore being flexible. In return, he has "educated" his management that flexibility works both way, and they are paying him for rest in the day when they don't have to.

That's a very long winded version of what I wrote. I thought I'd keep it short as there's already been lots of hot air in this thread

Well some would claim he and his employer (and me and my employer) have no choice but to stick to the letter of the WTD. But for both of us common sense prevails.

By the way you may be interested in the other thread on the WTD in this forum which has just had an interesting update...as you're interested in case law on this subject.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3336482

[FONT=&quot]Sorry you are probably right and I misunderstood everything. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your tone seemed so anti working time regulation throughout this thread yet you didn’t really know much about it so I felt obliged to explain it properly for BB and everyone who is reading this not just you.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your main thrust seemed to be to be to dismiss the WTR relying on negotiation, good will and being flexible when apparently BB boss was just telling him what he had to do.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BB resolved his problem by using the WTR and you replied[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Excellent - sounds good! Some managers do need educating that flexibility works both ways. You're flexible with the WTD and thy're flexible about paying you for rest periods.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How were “thy're flexible about paying you for rest periods”?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] They are only doing it because they have to, because their other choices are worse from their point of view[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You also said “generally whoever starts throwing regulations around loses!” well perhaps you can chalk this one up to the regulation throwers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Anyway at least BB has gained something out of our posts, or has he? It was not clear if his boss has agreed to his terms or if it is just a plan still to be put to the boss[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am off to read your link now[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By the way you never seemed to have understood that I have never stuck to the letter of the law re the WTR or advised anyone else to, the letter of the law would probably never suit either side but you need to know and understand what the letter of the law is so that the law is not misrepresented to you to your disadvantage and so you can defend your corner.
[/FONT]

mildred1978

chainsaw wrote: »

My understanding is that you have to have a full 24hr break in 7 days or 48hrs in 14 days. This has nothing to do at all with the 11 hr rule.

There is a list of occupations that are excluded from the 11 hr rule. When you examine this list it is so log and vague it could include anyone. It comes down to interpretation again.

If a fireman is in the middle of putting out a fire then it would be unreasonable for him to leave the scene so he could have 11hrs rest. He would however need compensatory rest when he finally finished his shift. Even though a fireman may have to break the 11 hr rule from time to time this does not mean shift patterns can be designed so poorly or deliberately to cause the fireman to have to break the 11 hr rule.

.

Emergency services and the armed forces are excluded from this part of the WTD, and you'll find that many many hospitals and police forces (as well as fire crews and army units) ariund the country have shift patterns that neither allow 11 hours between shifts nor 24/48 hours rest in any 7/14 day period

chainsaw

mildred1978 wrote: »

Emergency services and the armed forces are excluded from this part of the WTD, and you'll find that many many hospitals and police forces (as well as fire crews and army units) ariund the country have shift patterns that neither allow 11 hours between shifts nor 24/48 hours rest in any 7/14 day period

Emergency services (blue light) and armed forces are exactly the sort of services you would expect to be excluded although these is still a duty on employers to attempt to follow the WTR. The WTR are not the only regs / law involved here. Imagine a policeman or other blue light service telling his superior he had been awake / working for 20 hrs and did not feel safe to drive. I~s his boss going to tell him he has to and risk a corporate manslaughter charge. etc.

I am a bit out of date with the hospital situation but i do know that over the last decade hospitals have been the biggest bone of contention regarding the WTD as the two most important test cases at the European Court involved doctors on call.

I thought even doctors now had to conform to the 48hr week unless they opt out but I am not sure.

All sorts of company's break many different parts of the WTR not just emergency services etc. This happens because the WTR is not policed by anyone so it is left to individuals who feel sufficiently aggrieved and brave enough to take on their employer and risk losing there job. Not surprisingly it does not happen often.

The government don't like the WTR so each time a test case is won they ignore it and say its a one off and each situation has to be judged on its merits.

chainsaw

zagfles wrote: »

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3336482

Thanks for the link I was not aware of this case, I did know about this thread and made a couple of contributions a few months ago