The ECJ has ruled that for a group of Spanish workers who had no fixed or habitual place of work, time spent travelling to and from the first and last job of the day job constituted working time.
As expected, the ECJ has followed the Advocate General’s opinion, which we previously reported, click here.
The ECJ confirmed the following:
- Time is either working time or a rest period for the purposes of the Working Time Directive. There is no intermediate category.
- For the technicians in this case who did not have a fixed or habitual place of work, time spent travelling to the first job of the day and home after the last job of the day constituted working time. It is interesting that the ECJ avoids the terminology used by the Advocate General of ‘peripatetic’ or ‘itinerant’ workers.
- Helpfully, the judgment deals with remuneration. It categorically states that the method of remunerating workers for this travel time is not covered by the Directive, but is a matter for national law.
- It also recognises that employers may want to put in place necessary monitoring procedures to avoid potential abuse.
We will be discussing the implications of this case, and what you can do to mitigate its impact, in our Member Briefings: Employment Law Update which are taking place this Autumn at locations across the UK. Click here to book your place.