The answer may be yes, if you are a peripatetic worker. Following our recent update, the European Court of Justice has confirmed that the time peripatetic workers spend travelling from their home to their first client, between clients and back to their home from their final client, should be considered working time for the purposes of the Working Time Directive, because travelling is an integral part of the work of such 'peripatetic workers', meaning that it should be regarded as forming a necessary part of the workers' activities. Therefore in turn, this will have implications for pay, including the National Minimum Wage as well as working time legislation.
The case of Federacion de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras v Tyco Integrated Security SL, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA concerned two security system installation and maintenance companies. The technicians employed by the companies install and maintain security equipment in homes and in industrial and commercial premises located within geographical areas assigned to them.
The workers travel every day from their homes to the places where they carry out the installation or maintenance of security systems. The workers receive a task list on a daily basis which details the various premises that they are required to visit the following day and the times at which they are required to meet customers.
The employees' working day is calculated from the time they arrive at their first appointment with the client until the time they depart from their final client of the day. Travel time between client premises is considered working time by the companies. The Court confirmed that in this case time travelling between assignments should be regarded as Working Time.
The definition of 'Working Time' in the Working Time Directive is 'any period during which the worker is working, at the employer's disposal and carrying out his activity or duties, in accordance with national laws and/or practices'. The Court held that the three criteria are met.
The Court concluded that travelling is an integral part of being a peripatetic worker and therefore inherent in the performance of their activity. As such the first and third criteria were met. Moreover as destinations are determined by the employer who could modify their instructions at any time, the workers are the employer's disposal when travelling within the scope of their work.
The Court has confirmed the conclusion of the Advocate General. The concept of 'working time' is to be understood as antonymous with the concept of 'rest periods'.. It held that to describe as 'rest time' the daily travelling, which the workers are required to undertake to visit clients and in respect of which they have no control, imposes on them a disproportionate burden and is contrary to the objective of the protection of health and safety of workers contained in the Directive.
This will have an effect on employers in a number of sectors whose employees may now rely on this decision in relation to Working Time, and pay for such "rest" periods. It is important to review arrangements for travel time especially in relation to peripatetic workers if claims are to be avoided.
We would be happy to provide advice in relation to the application of the Working Time Directive and National Minimum Wage legislation in light of this decision.
Disclaimer
The material contained in this article is of the nature of general comment only and does not give advice on any particular matter. Recipients should not act on the basis of the information in this e-update without taking appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.
