The reporter has raised a safety concern in relation to a 60-minute meal break not being provided in the roster after a long driving shift as per the new Enterprise Agreement (EA).
The reporter states, 'A clause in our current Enterprise Agreement in effect from [date], allows for a 60-minute meal break when we drive over 200 km in a single shift. The spirit of this clause is to give the driver an adequate break to refresh and to help manage fatigue'.
The reporter acknowledges the new roster being implemented in the first week of [date] will address the concern however queries why the roster cannot be adjusted by the rostering department as a matter of priority post-implementation of the new EA.
The reporter is concerned the operator is not taking safety seriously by not adjusting rosters to allow for the 60-minute meal break in the same way drivers are provided 2-5 days' notice of what their job entails on a particular day.
The report relates to a new entitlement under the [Operator]'s Enterprise Agreement, which provides for a 60-minute meal break when a driver is rostered to drive greater than 200 km. We understand that the concern raised in the report is that, broadly, [Operator] is alleged to not be taking safety seriously due to the fact that it has been unable to immediately implement this clause from the commencement date of the [year] Agreement.
The [date] Agreement commenced operation on [date]. Clause [section] of the [year] Agreement provides:
Where a Driver is rostered to a shift where they will drive greater than 200 km, then the Driver will have a meal break of 30 minutes, plus meal prep/wash, walk to/from meal location. For the avoidance of doubt, the total rostered break shall be no less than 60 minutes.
On [date], [Operator] management, in consultation with the [Union], advised its employees covered by the [year] Agreement that there were some clauses in the [year] Agreement that could not be implemented immediately. This is because some clauses relate specifically to employees’ working rosters, and require a ‘working timetable’ (WTT) and rotation change to be fully implemented. Clause [section] of the [year] Agreement (set out above) is one such clause that requires changes to employees’ working rosters. [Operator] was therefore unable to immediately implement this new entitlement. [Operator]’s update to employees confirmed that clause [section] of the [year] Agreement would be implemented in full as of [date]. The [Union] have informed [Operator] of its consent.
Until the implementation date, employees will continue to receive their existing break entitlements, as set out under the [Operator]'s Enterprise Agreement [year]. Under the [year] Agreement, employees are entitled to a meal break of not less than 20 minutes, which excludes walking time. Such meal break is to commence between three to five hours of the commencement of an employee's shift and is in accordance with [Operator]’s fatigue management processes.
The addition of clause [section] to the [year] Agreement represents an additional benefit for [Operator] employees. It was not introduced to respond to an existing risk to health or safety.
[Operator] does not consider there to be any safety risks with applying its existing practices in relation to meal breaks, before the implementation date, where employees will be rostered to have longer meal breaks. [Operator]’s slight delay in implementing clause [section] of the [year] Agreement does not create or exacerbate any risks to drivers' health and safety and remains in accordance with [Operator]’s fatigue management processes and Rail Safety National Law more broadly.
ONRSR confirms receipt of ATSB REPCON report number RR2024-00006 regarding meal breaks after a long driving shift. ONRSR has reviewed the reporter’s concerns and operator’s response. In this instance ONRSR is satisfied with the operator’s response.