Travel to Work ruling
Discussion
Had an issue pop up that I can't find any definitive reference to online.
For workers that work in different locations, the time taken to travel from the home to the place of work and back counts towards the 48 hour working week ruling.
It has been suggested by one of our employees that this travel time should also be paid for.
That can't surely be right can it?
For workers that work in different locations, the time taken to travel from the home to the place of work and back counts towards the 48 hour working week ruling.
It has been suggested by one of our employees that this travel time should also be paid for.
That can't surely be right can it?
https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/ca...
What counts as work
A working week includes:
job-related training
time spent travelling if you travel as part of your job, eg sales rep
working lunches, eg business lunches
time spent working abroad
paid overtime
unpaid overtime you’re asked to do
time spent on call at the workplace
any time that is treated as ‘working time’ under a contract
travel between home and work at the start and end of the working day (if you don’t have a fixed place of work)
What counts as work
A working week includes:
job-related training
time spent travelling if you travel as part of your job, eg sales rep
working lunches, eg business lunches
time spent working abroad
paid overtime
unpaid overtime you’re asked to do
time spent on call at the workplace
any time that is treated as ‘working time’ under a contract
travel between home and work at the start and end of the working day (if you don’t have a fixed place of work)
Robb F said:
https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/ca...
What counts as work
travel between home and work at the start and end of the working day (if you don’t have a fixed place of work)
So we have to pay! That is bonkers. We're only talking 45 mins a day....but even so.What counts as work
travel between home and work at the start and end of the working day (if you don’t have a fixed place of work)
If we employ someone to work on a project at varying locations in a town and at the start of the project, they live half an hour away, then that's fine.
But if they move and it then takes them two hours a day to get there and another two hours back, as an employer, we are duty bound to pay them the same amount for doing less work because we can't make them work more than 48 hours a week....which is sort of the issue we have that prompted the question.
But if they move and it then takes them two hours a day to get there and another two hours back, as an employer, we are duty bound to pay them the same amount for doing less work because we can't make them work more than 48 hours a week....which is sort of the issue we have that prompted the question.
StevieBee said:
If we employ someone to work on a project at varying locations in a town and at the start of the project, they live half an hour away, then that's fine.
But if they move and it then takes them two hours a day to get there and another two hours back, as an employer, we are duty bound to pay them the same amount for doing less work because we can't make them work more than 48 hours a week....which is sort of the issue we have that prompted the question.
It's not the time taken from their home to their workplace, its the difference in time between their normal place of work/registered office and the secondary location that counts as part of their hours. If they move house further away from the office, that's their problemBut if they move and it then takes them two hours a day to get there and another two hours back, as an employer, we are duty bound to pay them the same amount for doing less work because we can't make them work more than 48 hours a week....which is sort of the issue we have that prompted the question.
boyse7en said:
StevieBee said:
If we employ someone to work on a project at varying locations in a town and at the start of the project, they live half an hour away, then that's fine.
But if they move and it then takes them two hours a day to get there and another two hours back, as an employer, we are duty bound to pay them the same amount for doing less work because we can't make them work more than 48 hours a week....which is sort of the issue we have that prompted the question.
It's not the time taken from their home to their workplace, its the difference in time between their normal place of work/registered office and the secondary location that counts as part of their hours. If they move house further away from the office, that's their problemBut if they move and it then takes them two hours a day to get there and another two hours back, as an employer, we are duty bound to pay them the same amount for doing less work because we can't make them work more than 48 hours a week....which is sort of the issue we have that prompted the question.
according to figures from 2016 (http://www.cityam.com/275885/ranked-uk-regions-longest-and-shortest-daily-commutes) the average each way commute in the UK is about 58 minutes which would be unpaid.
OP;
I would expect to have a policy that dictates the length of commute before you start to pay which along the lines of the previous posted who mentioned 30 minutes commute is unpaid. You are controlling where the employee works, they benefit when posted close but should be remunerated if they're having to travel further than would be reasonably expected day to day. I'd suggest the national or local average forms a good basis for reasonable commute expectation.
Thanks for the replies chaps.
I have found out the facts of the matter. If others are interested, it's this:
Unless there is a permanent place of work stated in the contract, then the following applies.
The time taken for an employee to travel to and from their home to the place of work is counted towards their 48 hour working week. They must also get paid for this time as well. An employer has no right to impose restrictions on the time it takes to get to and from home. So if an employee moves two hours away, tough on the employer (though in this example, in a court a case of 'unreasonable' could be contested).
The only work-around is to specify a permanent physical place at which all employees are required to assemble at the beginning of each day. Once there, they can be dispersed to wherever is needed for the rest of the day and the travel to work time and pay ruling doesn't apply.
I can see why this exists and the protection is serves to some but the lack of 'real-world' tolerances is daft.
I have found out the facts of the matter. If others are interested, it's this:
Unless there is a permanent place of work stated in the contract, then the following applies.
The time taken for an employee to travel to and from their home to the place of work is counted towards their 48 hour working week. They must also get paid for this time as well. An employer has no right to impose restrictions on the time it takes to get to and from home. So if an employee moves two hours away, tough on the employer (though in this example, in a court a case of 'unreasonable' could be contested).
The only work-around is to specify a permanent physical place at which all employees are required to assemble at the beginning of each day. Once there, they can be dispersed to wherever is needed for the rest of the day and the travel to work time and pay ruling doesn't apply.
I can see why this exists and the protection is serves to some but the lack of 'real-world' tolerances is daft.
I used to work for a Repairs & Maintenance company. Field staff were paid from the moment they got in their vans. they all had PDA/trackers fitted so when they logged on they were basically "at work". Yes they benefitted by not having the commute "to and from work" but, in overall terms, there shouldn't have been any additional costs to the Employer on the basis of "some you win, some you lose".
For example - It might be that the job is next door to where the operative lives, in which case the company has saved the 30 minutes it would have taken for him/her to drive from the depot to the customer's house. Equally the job might be next door to the depot, in which case you are paying the operative for his commute.
Overall it worked fine for us. Plus the jobs were allocated to minimise driving around anyway.
For example - It might be that the job is next door to where the operative lives, in which case the company has saved the 30 minutes it would have taken for him/her to drive from the depot to the customer's house. Equally the job might be next door to the depot, in which case you are paying the operative for his commute.
Overall it worked fine for us. Plus the jobs were allocated to minimise driving around anyway.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff