Anyone delivering goods as a professional driver knows: between opening the drop-down doors and the final acceptance of the goods, numerous additional work steps may lie in between.
In my article § 412 HGB – Why a single paragraph does not explain the entire legal situation , I have already explained why this provision cannot be used to derive a general prohibition on loading and unloading for drivers. However, it also does not answer every question regarding the tasks demanded of us at the ramp.
This article picks up exactly there. What happens if the driver is not just supposed to unload the pallets but also remove shrink wrap, prepare the goods for a high-bay warehouse, or must repack an entire delivery onto other pallets?
What concerns me is how far the driver’s task extends when the recipient transfers their warehousing processes onto them – and which legal limits apply independently of contractual agreements.
From the Driver’s Seat to the Transfer Device
During deliveries to Kaufland logistics centers in Dortmund and Edeka in Hamm, I experienced the following procedure: As a driver, I was handed a small utility knife. I had to leave my truck keys as collateral to receive the key for the electric tow tractor.
This device was a towed industrial truck. I walked alongside it and steered it via the drawbar.
Subsequently, I unloaded the pallets myself from the vehicle. If they were shrink-wrapped, I had to remove the wrap sufficiently so that the pallet was free for further storage. Then I pushed the pallet into the transfer device for the high-bay warehouse. The warehouse employee merely scanned the label during this work step.
If the automated storage system rejected the pallet, for example due to a slightly shifted pallet block, I was asked to repack the entire goods onto another pallet. If I refused, I should have taken the rejected goods back with me.
I am describing my own experiences here. No conclusion can be drawn from this about how all deliveries at these locations are organized today.
However, the procedure raises questions that go far beyond these two examples.
The requirements of a high-bay warehouse are not yet an instruction for work
It is understandable that an automated warehouse makes certain demands on pallets. A damaged pallet can impair safe transport or storage.
However, three questions must be separated: Is the pallet actually damaged? Does it merely fail to meet a special requirement of the system? And who must carry out the necessary rework?
The computer’s message does not yet provide an answer to the last question.
§ 412 HGB also provides no general prohibition on loading and unloading for drivers. The provision generally assigns the loading and unloading obligation to the consignor but takes into account deviating circumstances and trade customs. The carrier is responsible for safe loading.
The provision does not contain a general statutory duty for the driver to repack rejected goods for the high-bay warehouse. Whether such performance is owed must be clarified separately. § 412 HGB
Who can assign which tasks to the driver?
In an employment relationship, the right to give instructions generally belongs to the employer. They may concretize the activity within the applicable limits according to equitable discretion. Statutory provisions, collective agreements, works agreements, and the employment contract limit this right. § 106 GewO
For an employed driver, this means: The customer’s warehouse employee does not automatically become their legal superior upon delivery.
This does not exclude coordinated procedures, validly transferred powers, or safety instructions on the business premises. However, a corporate safety rule and the demand to repack an entire delivery are different things.
Therefore, an unexpected additional work order must be clarified with one’s own employer or the responsible dispatch department. The statement “All drivers do this here” answers neither the question of authority nor that of safe execution.
A key does not replace instruction
The electric tow tractor is a tool of work. Whoever is to use it must possess the required knowledge and be instructed on its safe use.
§ 12 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act requires task-related instruction before use. It must also consider hazards of the work environment, protective measures, and behavior in case of malfunctions. The information must be conveyed in a form and language understandable to employees.
Further instructions are regularly required, at least annually; their execution must be documented. In cases of special hazards, only appropriately assigned employees may be deployed. § 12 BetrSichV
It depends on the design. A pure towed device is assessed differently from an industrial truck with a driver’s cab or driver’s seat. Requirements for qualification and written assignment apply to the latter.
The occupational safety association also explains requirements for qualification and verifiable assignment for motorized towed industrial trucks. The blanket statement “Every E-tow tractor requires the same forklift license” would therefore be just as inaccurate as “Anyone can drive it immediately.” BGHM: Industrial Trucks
Handing over a device key does not, in itself, prove that these prerequisites have been met.
Lack of instruction is no reason for insults
The problem became particularly clear to me with a foreign driver. To my knowledge, he had never worked with an electric forklift before. He did not know how to operate the device. At least, he was able to convey this to me in a mix of broken German and English. I informed the warehouse staff about this situation, but all I heard afterwards was “Wow, he’s so stupid.”
The warehouse employees reacted with anger and insults. Instead of explaining how to operate it, they portrayed him as stupid. When I objected that it was their duty to provide instruction, this was dismissed in essence with the remark: If someone cannot handle an electric forklift, they should question whether they are suitable for the profession at all.
Here, two different skills are being conflated. Safely driving a truck and safely operating a specific material handling device are separate tasks. A driver’s license does not provide proof that someone is familiar with every warehouse device provided.
My objection at the time also needs to be legally clarified: Responsibility for qualification, instruction, and assignment lies with the involved employers and must be organized between them. It does not automatically follow that every warehouse employee present must personally conduct a complete qualification.
However, the receiving company has its own obligations. Depending on the activity, it must ensure that employees from outside the company have received appropriate instructions regarding hazards in its operation. § 8 ArbSchG (Occupational Health and Safety Act)
If someone clearly does not know how to operate a powered device, the safe use must first be clarified. Pressuring them creates no competence.
For me, this situation shows where the discussion often goes astray. It is expected that the driver takes on additional tasks. If he asks or lacks the knowledge for them, his professional suitability is questioned. However, it should first be checked whether the prerequisites for this additional task have actually been created.
Occupational health and safety does not end at the customer’s gate
When employees of different employers work at the same workplace, the employers must cooperate in occupational health and safety.
They must exchange relevant hazard information and coordinate protective measures. This is particularly relevant for a driver who operates a provided material handling device between ramps, warehouse traffic, and an automated transfer station. § 8 ArbSchG (Occupational Health and Safety Act)
The own employer retains its responsibility. At the same time, the warehouse operator cannot simply leave the hazards of their operation to the driver. The fact that someone has been driving trucks for decades does not replace knowledge of the specific facility.
The transfer device is also part of this consideration. Where pallets are automatically taken over and further conveyed, safe processes, permissible areas of presence, and behavior in the event of a malfunction must be clarified. The Machinery Directive requires protective measures against hazards from work equipment, such as moving parts. § 9 BetrSichV (Operational Safety Regulation)
Repacking must be physically possible safely
Fully repacking a pallet can mean numerous lifting and carrying operations. Important factors include weight, grip possibilities, body posture, repetitions, and the working environment.
The Manual Handling of Loads Ordinance obliges employers to avoid hazardous manual handling of loads as far as possible through suitable organization or work equipment. Where it cannot be avoided, the conditions must be assessed and appropriate protective measures taken. § 2 Manual Handling of Loads Ordinance
In addition, physical suitability must be considered when transferring tasks. Therefore, it is not enough to place a replacement pallet there and expect every driver to restack every delivery under any conditions. Manual Handling of Loads Ordinance, especially § 3
Even when removing the film, possible hazards must be considered: cuts, unstable goods, and the effects on subsequent movements. Which measures are required results from the risk assessment of the actual activity. § 5 ArbSchG (Occupational Health and Safety Act)
Whether these obligations were violated in an individual case cannot be determined solely from the request to repack. It must be known which conditions and protective measures were actually present.
While I am repacking, I am not taking a break
Unloading, removing film, moving pallets, and repacking goods are work.
For trips within the scope of the European Driving and Rest Time Regulation, such activities cannot simultaneously count as a driving interruption. This must serve recovery; other work may not be performed during this time. The actual activities must be recorded accordingly. Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, especially Articles 4 and 6
Therefore, additional warehouse work must be taken into account in further planning. It consumes working time, even if no additional driving minutes accrue.
The statutory working time limits and required breaks remain in force. For recorded employees in road transport, the special provisions of § 21a ArbZG (Working Time Act) apply. § 3 ArbZG, § 4 ArbZG, § 21a ArbZG
Whether additional remuneration arises is another question. A fixed salary certainly does not make performed work into a rest break.
And if repacking means the further schedule no longer fits, the tour must be re-evaluated. The lost time cannot be made up by the driver driving faster afterwards or skipping a break.
“Then take the goods back” does not solve the problem.
Whether a specific refusal of acceptance is justified cannot be determined without knowledge of the delivery, the pallet condition, and the underlying agreements.
However, § 419 of the German Commercial Code (HGB) provides for a regulated approach to handling transport and delivery obstacles: The carrier must obtain instructions from the authorized party. If the authorized recipient refuses acceptance, the right of disposal reverts to the sender under the statutory prerequisites. (§ 419 HGB)
For the driver, this practically means: Document any objections and refusal of acceptance and inform dispatch so that the carrier can obtain the necessary instructions.
A return or re-transport may be the result. However, it is not a decision whose legal and organizational consequences the driver should clarify alone at the ramp. For international transports, the applicable transport law must also be considered, in particular the CMR.
Documentation should include, as far as possible, the exact reason for the objection, the affected goods, the start and end of additional work, and the instructions received. It should also be recorded whether the pallet was damaged or rejected by the storage system for another reason.
What does handing over the truck key mean?
Handing over the key alone cannot derive either a legal violation or a proper security procedure. For that, it must be clarified what purpose it serves and how the procedure is organized. So far, the argument has been: The keys for the ant were stolen from us in the past, so we get your truck key. I then eventually bought my own keys, so I never had to hand over a key again.
A procedure to prevent premature driving away would be evaluated differently than a mere pledge regulation for the device key.
Regardless of this, the vehicle must be secured against dangerous movements during loading operations. The BG Verkehr (Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health - Road Transport) lists parking brakes and chocks among other measures for this purpose. Handing over the ignition key does not answer these security questions alone. BG Verkehr: Loading and Unloading
The decisive boundary lies in the organization
I do not claim that every repacking by a professional driver would be unlawful. Nor is every demand of the recipient automatically admissible.
Even if additional work has been agreed upon, statutory prerequisites must be met: clear authority, suitable and trained employees, safe working equipment, coordinated occupational health and safety measures, and correct time recording.
An automated warehouse may impose high demands on its processes. However, it must also be clarified who undertakes the resulting work and under what conditions.
Anyone who wants to have a driver work with an unfamiliar device must organize for its safe use. Anyone who wants a complete pallet repacked must also consider the physical strain and time required. And anyone who refuses acceptance triggers a process that must be resolved between the responsible parties.
The driver stands at the end of the transport chain. This does not automatically make him responsible for every problem that arises during goods acceptance.
Dispatch and the employer should also check which tasks after unloading actually belong to the agreed scope of work for the driver.
In my experience, this question is often not asked in everyday practice. When I asked dispatch whether I really had to repack the goods, I usually received the gist answer: “Just do it. As long as the clothes are off the car.”
This passes the problem onto the driver. Whether the additional activity has been agreed upon, can be carried out safely, and what impact it has on working time and route planning remains unclear.
I dare to doubt whether this approach contributes to retaining employees in the profession and attracting new talent. Anyone who becomes a professional driver does not automatically decide to take over all additional tasks of warehouse logistics. This was also one of many reasons why I turned my back on normal forwarding daily life and am now active in the round-wood sector. There, I have nothing more to do with central warehouses and power-hungry warehouse employees .
For me, unloading belongs to a comprehensible professional routine. However, this does not mean that every subsequent repacking, sorting, or preparation for storage automatically becomes the driver’s task. We are drivers, not warehouse workers. Where additional warehouse work is demanded, the order, responsibility, occupational health and safety, and time requirements must be clarified.
Research status: October 13, 2026. This article combines the general legal framework with my personal experiences and assessments. Whether a specific procedure violates current law depends on the actual conditions and must be examined legally in individual cases.
