received this from the solicitors allied to the union. Although it doesn’t refer to drivers it does refer to mobile workers. it seems to me that it could possibly apply to agency workers. Anyway, copied and pasted for information if nothing else.
The ECJ has held, in the case of Federacion de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras v Tyco Integrated Security SL and another, that time spent by mobile workers, who do not have a fixed or habitual place of work, on travelling between their home and the premises of the first and last customers of the day is classed as working time under the Working Time Directive.
Tyco employs workers to install and maintain security equipment in Spain. The workers have responsibility for a particular area, but they are assigned to the central office in Madrid after the provincial offices were all closed in 2011. The workers have a company vehicle and they travel each day from their homes to their customers’ premises and back home again. The amount of travel varies each day and can sometimes be over 100km. Their assignments are received for the following day by mobile phone.
Under Tyco’s policy, the first and last journey of the day, i.e. the journeys to and from the worker’s home, are not classed as working time, which starts when they arrive at the first assignment and ends when they leave the last. Before the provincial offices were closed, working time started when the workers arrived at the office to pick up the vehicle and their task list and finished when they arrived back at the office to drop the vehicle off. The workers brought claims in the Spanish courts claiming that the companies were breaching the Spanish working time rules. The Court referred the question to the ECJ.
The ECJ, who agreed with the Advocate General’s opinion, held that the first and last journeys should be classed as working time. It was relevant that the first and last journeys were regarded as working time before the regional offices had been abolished – the only thing that had changed was the departure points. In addition, the workers could be said to be at the employers disposal – they were not able to use the time freely during the travelling time and the companies were able to change the order of the customers or cancel appointments at any time, and if that happened the workers had to react to those instructions during those journeys.
In addition, as travelling is an integral part of being a worker without a fixed or habitual workplace, it must be regarded as forming part of the activities or duties of those workers.
The ECJ further rejected the suggestion that this decision would lead to an increase in costs for the employer. It pointed out that it is a matter for employers to determine the remuneration for travelling time and the Directive does not apply to workers’ remuneration.