Attorney-at-law Epp Lumiste successfully represented client in dispute with Labour Inspectorate
Attorney-at-law Epp Lumiste of the LEADELL Pilv Law Office successfully represented a client in dispute with Labour Inspectorate where the inspectorate had imposed a fine to board member of an employer for the violation of requirements provided in Art 137 of the Traffic Act. It may be a significant verdict for all the entrepreneurs whose economic activities involve the provision of services related to international transportation of goods as well as copying and storing data by vehicle drivers.
Art 137 of the Traffic Act obliges an employer who is organising transportation with a power-driven vehicle that has a mechanical or digital tachograph, to record and store data from the vehicle and driver card. Art 137 established the intervals for storing data. For example, information from the driver card must be copied at least once every 28 days and from the vehicle at least once every 90 days. In the given dispute the inspectorate was of opinion that the employer had failed to fulfil the requirement for recording and storing data and imposed a fine to board member. It is also important to note that the inspectorate failed to detect the specific person in the employer’s organisational structure whose work task was to copy information. The Labour Inspectorate decided to penalize the legal representative of the company or the manager, but at the same time did not if and how the member of board should be the person responsible for recording and storing data.
As a final result of the dispute, on 17 October 2016 the Tallinn District Court made a judgment stating that the Labour Inspectorate had failed to indicate the grounds on which the board member could be handled as the employer or which data was not stored by the employer.