In Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) and Tyco Integrated Security SL and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA, a Spanish Court  asked the ECJ whether the refusal by those undertakings to count the time that their employees spend each day, travelling from home to their first customer and from their last customer to their homes, as ‘working time’, contravened Article 2(1) of the Working Time Directive 2003/88. Advocate General Bot gave an opinion that EU law concerning the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that the time peripatetic workers, i.e. those who are not assigned to a fixed or habitual place of work, spend travelling from home to the first customer designated by their employer and from the last customer designated by their employer to their homes, constitutes ‘working time’, as it is an integral part of the job. The AG's opinion is not binding but is normally followed by the ECJ, which will give its final judgment later this year. 

The issue of whether travel to and from home constitutes working time, when a worker, as instructed by the employer, starts the day by going straight to a customer and returns home after visiting their last customer, is a difficult one, particularly given the lack of case law. The ECJ’s final decision should provide clarity, but in turn could have big implications. Indeed the current Government guidance does not provide much help since ‘What counts as work’ states that it includes time spent travelling for workers who have to travel as part of their job, e.g. travelling sales reps or 24-hour plumbers, but guidance on a ‘A working week’ states that it doesn’t include normal travel to and from work or travelling outside of normal working hours.

Download our App for more legal updates from theHRDIRECTOR

Content Note

The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.