That question is more complicated than you might think according to employment law expert James Willis from stevensdrake.

Do you know when your working day starts?  For most of us, the answer is probably quite straight-forward.  It will coincide with when you sit down at your desk or arrive at your workstation.  But what if you have no fixed place of work?  What if you travel in the normal course of your duties, providing services to clients or customers at their homes or business premises?

The Tyco case

A recent Spanish case called Federación de Servicios Privados del Sindicato Comisiones Obreras v Tyco concerned a security equipment engineer.  He travelled from his home directly to the premises of his customers, in order to install and service their security alarms and equipment.  When he finished his final ‘job’ of the day, he travelled straight home again.  So the question that came before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was this: when does his working day begin and end?  His employers claimed that his ‘working time’ did not include the time spent commuting to and from his first and last appointment of the day.  The employee disagreed.

What did the court say?

Looking at the decisions in previous cases, the ECJ accepted that 'working time' is defined as time spent:

• at the workplace;
• at the employer’s disposal; and
• engaged in work duties.

When applying these rules to the present case, the ECJ effectively concluded that where a worker does not have a fixed place of work and travels around as an integral part of their job, then the employee’s ‘working time’ will include the time spent travelling to and from the first and last appointment of the day.

What does this mean?

In simple terms, this decision means that affected workers will be able to argue that they are working longer hours than previously was the case.  This might well be problematic if, as a result of this decision, some workers are found to be working (a) in excess of the 48-hour limit on the working week or (b) otherwise in breach of the other limits on ‘working time’ set out in the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Those receiving pay rates at or close to the national minimum wage might hope that this ruling will also result in them receiving more pay.  Certainly, the British Government voiced concerns that this decision would result in increased labour costs for employers.  However, the ECJ was quick to quash this argument, pointing out that pay rates are governed by national (not European) laws.  So this decision does not directly affect the pay to which workers are entitled during any period of work.

What next?

It will be interesting to see how trade unions, employers’ organisations and the UK Government respond to this decision.  As mentioned above, technically, this case does not immediately allow affected workers to demand higher rates of pay.  However, is it really credible that travelling time could be ‘working time’ for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations 1998, but not for the purposes of the national minimum wage legislation?  I suspect that the trade unions will answer this question with a resounding ‘no’.  Whether this persuades a Conservative Government to take steps to clarify or address this anomaly is rather less certain!

Has this case got you thinking?

If you would like to know more about this and other employment law issues, please get in touch with me at james.willis@stevensdrake.com or connect with me on LinkedIn.  You can also subscribe to our monthly employment law newsletter at www.stevensdrake.com