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

wotsthat

Graham, your employer is already free to determine your remuneration for the time spent travelling at the end of the day. They've currently determined, I assume, it should be zero.

This ruling doesn't require them to do anything different other than to ensure that they're more careful you don't exceed 48 hours.

I wish you well in persuading your employer they owe you an extra 5 hours pay per week.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

"free to determine the remuneration for the time spent travelling between home and customers" does NOT mean that there will be no pay involved.

Your point, to me, was that this judgement does not state that employees will be paid for this time.

To back this up, you are referencing a quote which states the company "will be free to determine the remuneration". That suggests, quite clearly, remuneration will apply. That could be time in lieu, extra pay, or wrapping these hours up into the existing contract (So for example, they finish on a friday earlier to make up for the time spent travelling).

Either way, all of the above mean the hours are paid for via some conventional method.

You are just being utterly obtuse for some reason.

I am quoting from the actual text of the judgement; specifically that the employer is "free to determine the remuneration for the time spent travelling between home and customers" and that "the method of remunerating workers in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not covered by the directive but by the relevant provisions of national law. "

It is therefore simply a matter of fact that COJ did not, as you claim, rule that "time travelling to first and from last appointments is actually work and should therefore be paid". They are quite clearly stating that the issue of payment is "not covered by the directive".

You have to be pretty 'obtuse' not to understand that.:)

martinsurrey

antrobus wrote: »

I am quoting from the actual text of the judgement; specifically that the employer is "free to determine the remuneration for the time spent travelling between home and customers" and that "the method of remunerating workers in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not covered by the directive but by the relevant provisions of national law. "

It is therefore simply a matter of fact that COJ did not, as you claim, rule that "time travelling to first and from last appointments is actually work and should therefore be paid". They are quite clearly stating that the issue of payment is "not covered by the directive".

You have to be pretty 'obtuse' not to understand that.:)

this is correct,

Where this falls into remuneration territory is the interaction with the minimum wage. before you could be paid minimum wage from the time you arrive to the time you leave, this judgement means that the above pay structure is now in breach of the minimum wage regulations.

chucknorris

Who are these idiots that time travel to work? If I could time travel, it wouldn't be to work, it would be to watch the next lottery numbers drawn on tv.

antrobus

martinsurrey wrote: »

this is correct,

Where this falls into remuneration territory is the interaction with the minimum wage. before you could be paid minimum wage from the time you arrive to the time you leave, this judgement means that the above pay structure is now in breach of the minimum wage regulations.

That's what the CoJ means when they say it's a matter of national law. In the UK that would mean The National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. Those regulations appear to define time spent travelling as time at work, except (inter alia) where the travelling is between "a place of work or a place where an assignment is carried out", and then qualifies that by stating that time spent "travelling for the purpose of carrying out assignments to be carried out at different places between which the worker is obliged to travel, and which are not places occupied by the employer" does count as time at work.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111127964

Make of that what you will. But it is perfectly possible for different bits of legislation to have different defintions of the same thing. In the same way as a basic concept such as 'income' can have a different defintion depending on which bit of law you are talking about.