1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198 
D: go for 26 weeks
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I WAS SURPRISED to read that the Working Time Directive is perceived to be more difficult to implement with a reference period of 26 weeks than with 17 weeks (CM 10 November). On the contrary, extending the reference period to 26 weeks makes it easier for a business to improve the utilisation of its drivers' working time because peaks and troughs in drivers' activity can be spread over a longer period of time.
Additionally, administration of the WTD is actually easier under 26-week reference periods because there are only two reference periods in a year. If a company is using a 17-week reference period, at least one period of 18 weeks will be required each year.
By having to change the number of weeks over which the average working time is to be calculated for each period, albeit a very simple calculation to make, the possibility for error is greater and therefore compliance could be compromised.
I would suggest the majority of companies that have had problems implementing the WTD have done so because of the late publication of the guidance, the increased administrative burden it presents and the general driver shortage.
Helen Gallimore Key3 Partners Rugby, Warwickshire