In what could be a landmark decision, Advocate General Bot has said that, under the European Working Time Directive, a group of Spanish workers were ‘working’ when they travelled from home to their first customer assignment of the day and back home again at the end of the day. Although the Advocate General’s opinions are not binding on the European Court of Justice (ECJ), they are usually followed.
The case, which involves a group of peripatetic workers with no fixed workplace, was referred to the ECJ by the Spanish courts to determine whether time spent travelling was ‘working time’ or a ‘rest period’ under the European Working Time Directive. The workers are technicians who install and maintain security systems. Following the closure of their local offices, they have no fixed place of work, but they use a company car to travel to their work assignments and return home again. They are directed each day to their client assignments via their work mobile telephone, and as the locations of their assignments differ on a daily basis, they cannot elect to live near the customers/place of work.
The Advocate General decided that the travel time was ‘working time’ because:
- it was an inherent part of the performance of the technicians’ duties;
- it was a necessary period of time for them to reach the customers;
- they remained subject to their employer’s authority during their travel time as their employer might cancel or change the appointment or ask them to ‘call on an additional customer on their journey home at the end of the day’.
As such, the Advocate General said it was irrelevant that the start and end point were the technicians’ home addresses.
Whilst the decision clarifies the definition of ‘working time’ for mobile workers, it is not helpful for employers of workers who travel as part of their job, eg. travelling sales representatives, IT technicians or 24 hour plumbers. If the ECJ follows the Advocate General’s opinion, it will impact on permitted working hours and mandatory daily, weekly and annual rest periods, and may also impact on salary and holiday pay. We await the ECJ’s final decision for confirmation of the position.
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOT: Case C‑266/14 Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security SL, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA:
For further information or to discuss any of the issues raised, please contact Emma Clark or David Widdowson on +44 20 3051 5711 at Abbiss Cadres LLP – www.abbisscadres.com
Content is for general information purposes only. The information provided is not intended to be comprehensive and it does not constitute or contain legal or other advice. If you require assistance in relation to any issue please seek specific advice relevant to your particular circumstances. In particular, no responsibility shall be accepted by the authors or by Abbiss Cadres LLP for any losses occasioned by reliance on any content appearing on or accessible from this article. For further legal information see our legal page.
Circular 230 disclosure
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this article (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
If you would like to copy or otherwise reproduce this article then you may do so provided that: (1) any such copy or reproduction is for your own personal use or if it is made available to any third party it is done so on a free of charge basis; and (2) the article is reproduced in full together with the contact details, disclaimer and any logos as they appear on each article.