Travel time to first and last job of the day 14 September 2015
The European Court of Justice has held that, for workers who do not have a fixed or habitual place of work, the time spent travelling to their first and last customers of the day is regarded as working time under the Working Time Directive.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provides the details of this Spanish case - Federacion de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras v Tyco Integrated Security SL .
Tyco employs technicians who install and maintain security equipment at customers' premises in Spain. The technicians are provided with a vehicle and they travel from their own homes to the locations they are instructed to install the equipment, sometimes of distances exceeding 100km. They are in contact with their employer by mobile phone and are not generally required to travel to an office or a central location save for the weekly purpose of collecting tools and materials. For the purposes of the Working Time Directive and the relevant Spanish legislation, Tyco argued that the technicians' travelling time was a "rest period" rather than working time because they were not carrying out any installations or maintenance during those periods. The CJEU disagreed, stating that such an argument "would distort that concept and jeopardise the objective of protecting the safety and health of workers" and that it was working time. Tyco also argued that because the technicians' have the individual autonomy to make decisions as to their itinerary and which route(s) to take during their travelling time, these factors put them outside the boundaries of the Directive. Once again, the CJEU disagreed and made reference to the fact that the travelling time can neither be shortened nor used freely by the technicians for their own interests. Accordingly, the technicians were "at the disposal" of Tyco and thus their travelling time is covered by the Directive.
Discrimination claim can be brought forward by a Limited Company 2 October 2015 An employment appeal Tribunal was recently asked to consider whether a limited company, as a member of a Limited Liability Partnership, could bring a direct discrimination claim for detrimental treatment because of the protected characteristic of an associated person?
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletins for the following summary.
Can a limited company, as a member of a Limited Liability Partnership, bring a direct discrimination claim for detrimental treatment because of the protected characteristic of an associated person?
Yes, held the EAT in EAD Solicitors v Abrams
Mr Justice Langstaff rejected the argument that only an individual can be protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 because only an individual can have a protected characteristic.
Rather, Langstaff P upheld the employment tribunal's decision that, just as a corporation can be a discriminator (described in the Act as a 'person'), so too can it be a person on the receiving end of mistreatment. There was no reason to restrict the meaning of person in s.13(1) to an individual. The term, consistent with the definition in the Interpretation Act 1978, could cover both an individual and a corporation. Consistent with case law, the treatment complained of must be linked to the protected characteristic of an individual, but the treatment can be given to any person, natural or legal; there is no requirement that the person with the protected characteristic is the same person who suffers the detriment.
National Minimum Wage: Time when sleeping 7 October 2015
Is an on-call night worker who lives at his place of work entitled to National Minimum Wage (NMW) for all hours of the night?
No, held the EAT in Shannon v Clifton House Residential , he is only entitled to NMW for the hours during which he is awake and working.
CIPP Policy News Journal
25/04/2016, Page 77 of 453
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker