For those of us with knowledge of history, May 1st was originally celebrated as an ancient festival to welcome the spring weather. In Australia and in many other countries, May Day became an occasion to celebrate workers’ rights and particularly the campaign for an 8-hour working day.
With history in mind, one wonders on the significance and choice of May 1st for the commencement of the Road Transport and Distribution and Long Distance Operations Road Safety Order 2014. Unfortunately, for the transport industry, May 1st 2014 is now most likely to be remembered as the day when another layer of unwarranted, impractical and complex compliance was added to an industry that is already suffering under the weight of existing compliance legislation.
The key aspects of the Order that have unintended, unworkable consequences that will impose significant costs on the transport industry are the provisions dealing with written contracts for road transport industry drivers and participants in the supply chain and safe driving plans. It is noteworthy that 40 per cent of respondents to a recent NatRoad industry survey on the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal’s Order have not read the Order.
Most 1st level Operators that are contracted to the larger transport operators or directly by large retail clients generally have written contracts.
However, 2nd level operators (or potentially 3rd level or lower level operators) who are subcontracted by operators higher in the supply chain would most often not have a written contract, particularly where the freight task undertaken is on an ad-hoc basis. It is also noted that both NSW and Victoria have forms of transport industry contract determinations that may be in conflict with parts of the order, e.g. notice period for termination of the written contract.
Operators who undertake freight tasks directly with small to medium-sized business clients are mostly not likely to have written contracts, with such contracts that may exist also unlikely to comply with the minimum requirements of the Order. Clearly, a significant number of operators seek or are allocated work via third party freight brokers / consignors on an ad-hoc or temporary basis with this work arranged by phone with no ability to have a written contract in place. In addition, the back load freight task is most often undertaken without the ability to have a written contract particularly for work to or from regional or remote area locations at short notice.
With the majority of industry operators characterised as small to medium operators, most will lack the administrative support and knowledge to organise and maintain complying written contracts for each and every task undertaken. 87 per cent of respondents to the recent NatRoad survey advised that they do not have written contracts with either their prime contractor (83.2 per cent) or sub-contractors (91.2 per cent).
The other major part of the Order to affect operators is the requirement for Safe Driving Plans for all long distance trips that are undertaken. The ability of the majority of transport industry operators to comply with Clause 10 of the Order is considered to be negligible. Partially compliant SDP’s are marginally accepted as being possible for those transport tasks that are for regular standard routes, such as inter-capital city journeys. However, on best estimates, compliance will be limited to those operators of a sufficient size to allow for the employment of administrative staff with a level of industry knowledge and skill to develop an SDP for ad-hoc freight tasks that are most often arranged at short notice.
The majority of small to medium operators do not have the administrative or financial capacity to provide an SDP either at all, or in the timely manner required by the Order. It is further noted that a number of the components of an SDP as provided for in the Order are administratively and operationally impractical to implement, e.g. operations to / from regional or remote areas; return of completed and signed SDP’s within 48 hours.
It remains to be seen what level of compliance with the Order will occur, with most industry comment of the view that the Order is an unworkable and costly addition to the existing compliance procedures.