Tour operators seek return to 12-day work period for drivers

The current dispute involving the International Road Transport Union, which represents employers, and the European Transport Workers’ Federation concerns the 2006 regulation on road transport. Employers are particularly critical of the legislation’s provisions in relation to the maximum number of working days. Currently set at six days, employers claim that the restrictive nature of the legislation is driving costs up in the industry.

Harmonising of road transport regulations

On 15 March 2006, the European Union passed Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport. The new regulation amends Council Regulations(EEC) No. 3821/85 (64Kb PDF) (EC) No. 2135/98 (32Kb PDF) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 to improve the employment conditions of drivers as well as road safety. Although it acknowledges that this was also the aim of previous legislation, the current regulation notes that difficulties existed in the past ‘in interpreting, applying, enforcing and monitoring’ EU laws relating to road transport. Thus, Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006 seeks to ensure the ‘uniform’ implementation of such rules.

The regulation sets out the provisions for the ‘driving times, breaks and rest periods’ of drivers transporting both passengers and goods. By taking the initiative to legally oblige transport operators to abide by certain rules, the EU is also seeking to address unfair competitive practices that have continued to exist, despite earlier legislation. The regulation states that daily driving for four days a week should not exceed nine hours; however, the possibility also exists to increase this to 10 hours over a further two days. Moreover, Article 6 (2) of the regulation states: ‘The weekly driving time shall not exceed 56 hours and shall not result in the maximum weekly working time laid down in Directive 2002/15/EC being exceeded.’weekly working time allowed under the 2002 directive, drivers can no longer work 12 consecutive days.

Rising costs of tour operators

According to a report compiled by the International Road Transport Union (IRU), entitled Coach tourism and the loss of the 12-day derogation (1.1Mb PDF), the regulation that came into force on 11 April 2007 is threatening the future of international tour operators. The IRU claims that not only have costs increased by 30%, but profit margins have fallen by between 25% and 30%. The IRU claims that these higher costs are the result of companies being forced to employ new drivers. Moreover, it insists that failure to return to the 12-day derogation will force smaller operators out of the market.

European tour operators also argue that the new regulation poses a threat to the livelihood of drivers. The IRU report claims that the loss of a 12-day derogation period will negatively affect income levels, employment stability, work-life balance, job satisfaction and employment conditions. For example, the additional costs are forcing employers to consider increasing the number of drivers employed on temporary contracts. However, the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) disputes many of the IRU’s claims. It argues that long hours have a negative effect on drivers’ health and are disruptive to family life.

Commentary

The divided opinions over the 12-day derogation are not being helped by the lack of clear evidence supporting the IRU and ETF positions, as the discussions appear to be based on ‘common sense’ rather than statistical evidence. Certainly, this seems to be the conclusion of the European Commission. The EU Commissioner responsible for transport, Jacques Barrot, is committed to reviewing the current legislation in light of its effects on health and road safety.

Already, the ETF appears willing to enter into negotiations with the IRU over the current regulation. Nevertheless, the ETF has made it clear that any eventual discussions can only take place under two conditions: firstly, both social partners must agree to issue a letter asking Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who have submitted an amendment to re-introduce the 12-day rule to withdraw this amendment. The second condition relates to the ETF’s request that any discussions with the IRU should consider the working conditions of bus and coach drivers more generally.

Although the Commission is likely to welcome the ETF’s and IRU’s decision to engage in social dialogue over the 12-day derogation issue, the IRU appears reluctant at present to accept the ETF’s offer to enter into negotiations. Certainly, the employers’ position has been strengthened by the European Parliament’s call on the Commission to revisit the 2006 regulation. The IRU is likely to follow closely the Commission’s next move before it agrees to enter into social dialogue over the issue of rest periods.

Michael Whittall, Technical University Munich