Manchester 0161 832 2500   |   London City 0204 505 8080   |   London Finchley 020 8349 0321

Secure Payment
Logo
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Accreditations
    • Social Responsibility
  • Specialisms
    • All Specialisms
    • Commercial & IP
      • Commercial & Intellectual Property
        • Visit Overview
      • Terms and Conditions of Business
      • Commercial Agreements
      • Intellectual Property
    • Commercial Litigation
      • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
        • Visit Overview
      • Contentious Probate and Trust Solicitors
      • Private Wealth & Trusts Disputes
      • Company & Shareholder Contract Disputes
      • Intellectual Property Dispute Solicitors
      • Insolvency Disputes
      • Injunctions
      • Property Litigation
      • Employment Litigation
      • Professional Negligence
      • Injury & Accident Claims
      • Clinical Negligence
      • Judicial review
    • Corporate
      • Corporate
        • Visit Overview
      • Restructuring and Reorganisation
      • Raising Finance
      • Selling Your Business
      • Joint Ventures
      • Company Advice
      • Management Buy-Outs and Buy-Ins
      • Employee Ownership Trusts (EOTs)
    • Employment
      • Employment
        • Visit Overview
      • Employers
      • Employees
      • HR Professionals
      • In-house Lawyers
      • Entrepreneurs
    • Family
      • Family
        • Visit Overview
      • Divorce, Separation & Dissolution
      • Civil Partnership Dissolution
      • High Net Worth Divorce Solicitors
      • Prenuptial Agreements
      • Post Nuptial Agreements
      • Cohabitation Law Solicitors
      • Mediation Solicitors
      • Collaborative Law Solicitors 
      • One Lawyer Two Clients
      • Arbitration
      • Arrangements for Children
      • International Family Law
      • Domestic Abuse
      • Surrogacy & Fertility
      • Anglo-Swedish Legal Advice
    • Private Client
      • Private Client
        • Visit Overview
      • Wills
      • Grant of Probate
      • Charity Setup
      • Lifetime Gifting
      • Lasting Powers of Attorney
      • Intestacy
      • Insolvent Estates
      • Statutory Wills
      • Trusts
      • Trusts for Children
      • Inheritance
    • Property
      • Property
        • Visit Overview
      • Commercial Conveyancing
      • Commercial Leasing
      • Commercial Property
      • Lease Extensions
      • Property Finance
      • Residential Conveyancing
      • High Net Worth Residential Conveyancing
      • Buy To Let Conveyancing Solicitors
    • Secured Lending
      • Secured Lending
        • Visit Overview
      • Residential Loans
      • Development Loans
      • Commercial Property Loans
      • Portfolio Loans
      • Overseas Borrowers
      • Bridging Loans
  • Our Team
  • News, Insights & Work
    • News & Insights
    • Case Studies
  • Careers
  • Contact Us
Contact Us
Employment Law

Nov 2021

Is Travelling for Work, Working Time?

Home | News & Case Studies | Is Travelling for Work, Working Time?

Is travel time between home and a temporary workplace, outside of normal working hours, working time?

Neither the European Working Time Directive nor the Working Time Regulations 1998 say anything about whether travel to and from a place of work counts as working time. If there is no express agreement with an employer to say that certain travelling time is to be regarded as working time. The question is simply whether the worker can be said to satisfy all three limbs of the definition of ‘working time’, in that:

  • (a) they must be working,
  • (b) they must be at their employer’s disposal, and
  • (c) they must be carrying out their duties or activities.

Non-statutory guidance suggests that where workers, such as travelling sales representatives, have to travel as part of their job, that constitutes working time but travel outside of normal working hours is not included in working time. Time spent commuting is not usually considered to be working time because the worker is not usually at the employer’s disposal until they reach the workplace. This is the case, even if the worker uses some of their daily commutes to carry out work-related activities, such as making telephone calls or reviewing documents.

The question of whether travel to a place other than a normal workplace if the journey begins or ends at the worker’s home was addressed by the ECJ in Federacion de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras v Tyco Integrated Security SL. This case concerned a group of workers who drove to customers throughout Spain to install security systems. When the company closed its provincial offices and required the workers to drive straight from their homes to their first assignment, the question arose as to whether this was working time. The ECJ held that for peripatetic workers, who are not assigned to a fixed place of work, the time spent travelling from their home to their first assignment, and from their last assignment back to their home, should constitute working time. The travelling is still done within the context of the hierarchical employment relationship. So the journeys are subject to the authority of the employer, who can choose to change the order of customers or cancel an appointment, or require workers to call on an additional customer on their journey home.

The ECJ’s decision in Tyco was cited in the case of Thorbjorn Selstad Thue v The Norwegian Government, which came before the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association (the EFTA Court). This case addressed whether time spent travelling between home and a temporary workplace for a single assignment is working time.

Facts

Mr Thue, a chief inspector of police, was based at a particular police station in Norway.  He worked in various locations when on assignments escorting government ministers visiting the district. He claimed in the Norwegian courts that travelling to and from those temporary workplaces for these specific assignments was working time. When his claim was rejected, both initially and on appeal, he appealed to the Supreme Court of Norway, which referred the issue to the EFTA Court.

Held

Although the ECJ’s decision in Tyco was cited, in that case, the workers were completely peripatetic and travelling to different places every day, whereas in this case Mr Thue always had a permanent base. Nonetheless, the EFTA Court held that the travel time between Mr Thue’s home and the place of his assignment, which was often much further away than the police station at which he was based, should constitute working time. The Norwegian Government argued that the case could be distinguished from Tyco, where the workers had no permanent base which meant that travel to and from their homes was an inherent part of their duties. The EFTA Court disagreed saying that this would distort the concept of working time with the result that only a truly peripatetic worker or one with a completely fixed workplace would be protected, leaving those in an “intermediate” position (such as Mr Thue) unprotected.

Comment

Although the jurisdiction of the EFTA Court is not strictly binding on EU countries, it will still be persuasive.

Should your workers be paid for their travel time? If you are unsure get in touch with out expert Employment Solicitors to discuss your situation.


Share article:

Related Articles


Insight

How to get the most out of your first meeting with your family solicitor – preparation is key

Read Family
News For Women Scotland

Supreme Court Rules on Definition of “Woman”

Read Employment
Case Study

Ballingdon Hall: Financing in a Historic Property’s Journey

Read Secured Lending
SCROLL FOR MORE

Sign-up for our newsletter

Name(Required)
Untitled(Required)

Contact Details


Please submit careers applications using the link below

Careers Application: Submit

For proactive, lateral thinking and cost-effective legal advice, contact us to discuss your needs.

Email: [email protected]

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

On the 1st of October 2022, BBS Law acquired OGR Stock Denton Solicitors. OGR Stock Denton were a prominent North London based law firm with more than half a century’s experience assisting individuals and businesses with various legal issues. Many of the solicitors at OGR Stock Denton previously worked in either the West End of London or the City of London. The acquisition of OGR Stock Denton by BBS Law significantly increases the London presence of BBS Law and allows OGR Stock Denton’s clients access to BBS Law’s expert solicitors, previously based solely in Manchester and the City of London and now based at all three locations.


On the 1st of April 2024, BBS Law acquired Manuel Swaden Solicitors. Manuel Swaden were a prominent North West London based law firm known for its expertise in property and private client matters. This strategic move will fortify BBS Law’s position in these areas of practice and enhance its ability to serve clients with excellence and efficiency.

Manchester: 0161 832 2500

Fax: 0161 834 4826

First Floor, The Edge, Clowes Street, Manchester, M3 5NA

Download Directions

London City: 0204 505 8080

Fax: 0161 834 4826

Ground Floor, 80 Coleman Street, London, EC2R 5BJ

Download Directions

London Finchley: 020 8349 0321

Fax: 0161 834 4826

2nd Floor, Winston House, 2 Dollis Park, London, N3 1HF

Download Directions

Logo
  • Careers
  • Compliance
  • Estate Administration Costs
  • Employment Dismissal Costs
  • Debt Recovery Costs
  • Conveyancing Costs
  • Re-mortgaging Costs
  • Complaints Handling Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Staff Area

© 2025 BBS Law Ltd (registered number 07202211) is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under Number 556112. London City office SRA authority no: 8008216. London Finchley office SRA authority no: 8002172.
Managed by Full Send.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkDeny