Your time travelling to work IS work and should be paid for

Graham_Devon

European courts have ruled that time travelling to first and from last appointments is actually work and should therefore be paid.

This is for those whose work is mobile, so care workers (crucially), gas fitters etc.

According to the news doing something a bit more in depth, it could also apply to those who do field work and are expected to be 200 miles away from their home at "clock in" time. The CBI however are trying to get the UK to give clarity on this as it would obviously impact their members and they believe employees should have the right to opt out of this arrangement.

The ruling said: "The Court takes the view that the workers are at the employer's disposal for the time of the journeys. During those journeys, the workers act on the instructions of the employer, who may change the order of the customers or cancel or add an appointment.

"During the necessary travelling time - which generally cannot be shortened - the workers are therefore not able to use their time freely and pursue their own interests."

Anyone who has to commute to these jobs is also considered to be working during these journeys, the court ruled.

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/travelling-to-work-is-working-time-for-employees-without-fixed-office-11364003143497

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

European courts have ruled that time travelling to first and from last appointments is actually work and should therefore be paid.

This is for those whose work is mobile, so care workers (crucially), gas fitters etc.

According to the news doing something a bit more in depth, it could also apply to those who do field work and are expected to be 200 miles away from their home at "clock in" time. The CBI however are trying to get the UK to give clarity on this as it would obviously impact their members and they believe employees should have the right to opt out of this arrangement.



http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/travelling-to-work-is-working-time-for-employees-without-fixed-office-11364003143497

I would hope a little common sense would apply. People shouldn't be paid for their commute but should be paid for moving from place-to-place during the working day.

Courts exist to sort this kind of stuff out.

BTW OP, I don't think the courts said that you should be paid for traveling to work but instead between workplaces; crucial difference.

michaels

It is a tricky one - if you have a regular 'base' then I can see a case for charging the travel time for journeys above the time it takes you to get to the normal base (although that doesn't happen in my industry but the rules of the game are understood before taking on employment). What should happen if you have no base is less clear, almost everyone has some sort of commute to work so suggesting that you should be paid from the moment you leave home seems slightly unfair but otherwise how do you decide where to set the limit?

Generali

michaels wrote: »

how do you decide where to set the limit?

Take an average (mean) across the company/economy?

That would have two advantages:

1. Simple to calculate
2. Encourage people to live closer to work and thus reduce carbon emissions

System

It's pointless living closer to work. The ruling applies to people who are classed as mobile workers and go direct to their first appointment from home, not to a permanent work place

Carl31

Will this mean mileage can also be claimed on those journeys? In some circumstances, previously workers could only claim mileage between clients, not from home to first/last client

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

It is a tricky one - if you have a regular 'base' then I can see a case for charging the travel time for journeys above the time it takes you to get to the normal base (although that doesn't happen in my industry but the rules of the game are understood before taking on employment). What should happen if you have no base is less clear, almost everyone has some sort of commute to work so suggesting that you should be paid from the moment you leave home seems slightly unfair but otherwise how do you decide where to set the limit?

That's what happened in my last job although I very rarely went to my base. I could only claim excess mileag. Seems reasonable as I chose to live a fair distance from work.

martinsurrey

!!!!!! wrote: »

It's pointless living closer to work. The ruling applies to people who are classed as mobile workers and go direct to their first appointment from home, not to a permanent work place

Carl31 wrote: »

Will this mean mileage can also be claimed on those journeys? In some circumstances, previously workers could only claim mileage between clients, not from home to first/last client

If it turns out that it is indeed from where ever you live to your first appointment, you can almost guarantee that these firms will introduce a base for their workers, and require them to sign in before they head off for the first appointment.

Otherwise, your staff move 3 hours away from their patch (outside of the control of the company), and the firm has to pay 6 hours travel per day.

Generali

!!!!!! wrote: »

It's pointless living closer to work. The ruling applies to people who are classed as mobile workers and go direct to their first appointment from home, not to a permanent work place

Not according to the OP.

TBH he does tend to get things in a bit of a muddle but I think he's on firm ground here.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I would hope a little common sense would apply. People shouldn't be paid for their commute but should be paid for moving from place-to-place during the working day.

Courts exist to sort this kind of stuff out.

BTW OP, I don't think the courts said that you should be paid for traveling to work but instead between workplaces; crucial difference.

What they are saying is that if you are, for example, a care worker, you should be paid for the time it takes for you to get to your first appointment.

Currently, pay is given once you are at the first appointment. And actually, many carers are not paid at all for any journeys between clients, only when they are on site.

Another example is a plumber working for a firm. Say he has to arrive by 9am at the premises, but has to start out at 8am to get there for 9am. He should be paid from 8am, not 9am once he gets to the client.

If your last job finished at 5pm on the site, and it take an hour to get home, you should get paid until 6.

The ruling does not state that workers who commute to a fixed location, such as the same office daily should get paid travelling time.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Not according to the OP.

TBH he does tend to get things in a bit of a muddle but I think he's on firm ground here.

Think you are getting yourself confused here Gen. I specifically stated "This applies to mobile workers" in the second sentence of my op.