Tyco ruling on travel to work

jw7a28

Hi all

Does anyone know if this law is actually in force now since the european court of justice ruling on the 10th of September it has all gone quiet.

I work from home and travel to customers to fix office equipment my nearest office is 75 miles away and have been told by my line manager the matter has been raised with HR and we are to continue not to count travel in our working hours unless told otherwise. I would assume hmgov would appeal the ruling but google says nothing.

sangie595

If only life were that simple. The Court of Justice has no power to force any government to accept it's ruling, "just like that". At best it will take a national agreement (which probably means more court cases in the UK) to determine exactly what this means in the UK. The government will look at the ruling, consider existing law and guidance and eventually determine how to reflect that ruling in the UK context (assuming we are still in Europe by that time - and that we haven't opted out of the employment jurisdiction, which is certainly being considered).

In practice what this means is that employers will change nothing until they are told to by the government, but you are certainly free to take your employer to an employment tribunal now based on this decision... but don't hold your breath on how much longer your job will last if you do.Unfortunately the best advice would have to be to sit back and wait - it could be 6 - 12 months before anything is finalised.

stevemLS

The ECHR ruled 10 years ago that denying all prisoners voting rights was unlawful.

UK Govt have, essentially, said sod off, we will determine that.

ECJ decisions are not directly binding on lower courts although our domestic courts do, of course, pay them due respect.

Personally I think 12 months is very optimistic.

DandelionPatrol

Despite the pessimism, it would make sense for your to keep copies of your timesheets and a record of the time which would be payable if the ruling were adopted.

If the ruling is adopted by a change of UK law, then there will be no backpay from before the date the legislation comes into force. But if the change is implemented by a court decision, this will mean that the law was previously that the money should be paid and you may have a claim for up to 6 years.

jw7a28

Hi All and thanks for the replies Im not taking any action against my employer I was merely curious as to what the position in law this currently sits at. Travel always has been part of my employment with my current employer and I have always allowed an hour to get to my calls and an hour home my company has however instituted a lateness policy and stated traffic delays are no longer an excuse and three lates will be considered at a discipinary which I think is a bit draconian also lateness for meetings is covered under this policy I start at 9am and a team meeting starts at 8am 63 miles from my house I have to leave at 630am to be there on time. I queried this with HR and was told even though this is a company national policy my line manager would decide if im late to a meeting and what action to take not HR even starting one hour early and being expected to finish at the normal time I could still be disciplined for meeting lateness. This is also why I was curious about Tyco.

stevemLS

Even if Tyco is implemented, it would offer you no protection from this policy in my view.

They will have instituted the policy because one or more members of staff will have been taking the michael.

matttye

stevemLS wrote: »

The ECHR ruled 10 years ago that denying all prisoners voting rights was unlawful.

UK Govt have, essentially, said sod off, we will determine that.

ECJ decisions are not directly binding on lower courts although our domestic courts do, of course, pay them due respect.

Personally I think 12 months is very optimistic.

Actually European law can be directly applicable. See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l14547

In the past the House of Lords referred a case to the Court of justice of the European Union for a decision as to whether national law or EU Law would apply when there is a conflict and it was ruled that EU law would prevail in such circumstances.

stevemLS

matttye wrote: »

Actually European law can be directly applicable. See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l14547

In the past the House of Lords referred a case to the Court of justice of the European Union for a decision as to whether national law or EU Law would apply when there is a conflict and it was ruled that EU law would prevail in such circumstances.

That article is discussing legislation, not judicial precedence.

Whilst it is only an essay, in my opinion this is a reasonable representation of the situation http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/european-law/european-court-of-justice.php

ETA: Yes, the HL and now Supreme Court can refer matters or questions to the ECJ but it remains the case that European Jurisprudence is not binding, this is particularly given that, unlike domestic courts, the ECJ is not bound to follow it's own previous decisions and so there can and are cases where they have reached contradictory conclusions.

Similarly there is the concept of the "margin of appreciation" where member states are given a degree of leeway in determining how European Law is implemented, both Regulations and Jurisprudence.

matttye

stevemLS wrote: »

That article is discussing legislation, not judicial precedence.

Whilst it is only an essay, in my opinion this is a reasonable representation of the situation http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/european-law/european-court-of-justice.php

ETA: Yes, the HL and now Supreme Court can refer matters or questions to the ECJ but it remains the case that European Jurisprudence is not binding, this is particularly given that, unlike domestic courts, the ECJ is not bound to follow it's own previous decisions and so there can and are cases where they have reached contradictory conclusions.

Similarly there is the concept of the "margin of appreciation" where member states are given a degree of leeway in determining how European Law is implemented, both Regulations and Jurisprudence.

I understand what you're saying, but judicial precedent is based on interpretation of existing law at the time of the case in question.

A court will not magic a decision out of nowhere, they will consider the existing law and what Parliament's intention was when drafting it, etc.

So if a European court considers that existing EU law applies in a certain way and that EU law is directly applicable in a member state, the national courts would be foolish not to follow the European court's interpretation of said law.

There's a cost implication in referring cases to the European courts and my understanding is that is one of the main reasons why we brought in the Human Rights Act; because going to the ECtHR to enforce human rights was incredibly expensive.

misterbarlow

I have been looking into this a while as it covers my job..

I work for a utility and go straight to customers houses from my house each day, my paid hours are 8-4 but the company want us knocking the first door at 8, no matter how far that is from your home, 1 mile or 50miles, so we have to leave maybe 7.15-7.30 and drive to the customers house...

From reading the judgement, my take on it is that it IS applicable now, as I have just found it detailed on the gov.uk website, but this instruction from my employer does not change, they can still ask this of us to drive there before 8, but now those driving hours are classed as working with regards the working time directive, and just count towards the EU maximum working time total of 48hrs a week...

So for us doing a 37 hour week, with anything from an average of 2-5hrs a week driving on top, we still only do around 42/43hrs so this changes nothing for us...

but for the likes of the Tyco emplyees (or others similar) doing 3hrs each way a day, these hours that now add up to 15-20hrs a week, will take them over the 48hr maximum limit...

Is my take on this correct???

jw7a28

Hi misterbarlow and thanks for the reply. By the sound of it your job is similar to mine we have to be at customers for 9am our hours are a 37 hour week 9 - 530. I can start or finish anything up to 60 miles from home and on rare occasions longer. My company is still keeping stum on this but what I and my fellow engineers think is that this ruling although covers the european work directive we think travel would be included within the 37 hour week the ruling states travel to work to a static workplace is classed as leisure time for the employee but non static travel is work. I havent at any time opted out of the working time directive of 48 hours and have no intention one theory doing the rounds at our company is that they are going to change our contracts to 48 hours to get round this.