Travel for work and the law

[catgirl1976]

Hi

I work for a company that has a sales force who are locally based but travel nationally for sales meetings

The company has brought in a policy that states travel to meetings should be done in their own time, not during working hours.

If the have a meeting where they really need to leave the office early the previous day, the earliest they may leave is 4pm.

To give an example, one rep had a 9am meeting in Aberdeen. He was permitted to leave the office only at 4pm the previous day. It's a 7 hour drive from us to Aberdeen, so he would arrive at his hotel around midnight (assuming he didnt stop for something to eat or a rest break). He would then be up and out in the morning to arrive at his meeting at 9am.

They are contracted to work 37.5 hours per week. There is a clause in the contract that states 'you may be required to work overtime as dictated by the needs of the business' but despite that, I am not sure if this policy is legal

I want to advise the Partners that this wrong but would like some legal perspective to come from.

Any help would be hugely appreciated

[Eloise01]

Re: Travel for work and the law

Unfortunately you won't get much! There is no law that says that travel to work meetings should be working time or paid. There is a small amount of potential leeway where the travel is a requirement of the employment, but it is minimal in the the total hours worked must not exceed the working time regulations (which I am not sure that this will); and that the total remunerationn v hours worked must not fall below the national minimum wage (which I also don't think will apply). The fly in the ointment is that since this appears not to be a regular part of the job - as in travelling to see a client - it may not be included in working time anyway. But there is no law that per se says that the travel time is working time; nor that the employer must allow it to be undertaken in office hours. And the contractual overtime clause knocks almost all argument out of the water.

So I am afraid that you cannnot advise the Partners that this is not lawful because it is far from certain that it is, and it probably isn't; and I would suggest thinking very carefully before telling them that it is "wrong" - because it is, on the face of it, lawful, and "wrong" is a matter of opinion. Obviously you have one opinion, but the employer doesn't share it, and I wouldn't suggest putting yourself in the firing line for everybody else. If you all want to complain about it, that is one thing, but what I often find if that one person raises an issue and everyone else lets them!

[catgirl1976]

Re: Travel for work and the law

Hi

It is a regular part of the job.

They are a sales force and travel around 1,500 miles per week. All of this is in their own time outside of the contract hours.

They do 37.5 contracted hours and then probably another 10 - 20 hours travel per week

[Eloise01]

Re: Travel for work and the law

But as I read what you originally said, these meetings are not part of their regular work - you mentioned that they work locally and are required to sometimes attend national meetings. Are you saying that they are attending national meeting two or three times a week? I need to be very clear what exactly it is that you are saying - because 1,500 miles a week to Aberdeen and back is a lot of vists to Aberdeen! And you haven't addressed the fact that they contract still says that they have to work overtime as required, and that doesn't mean they have to be paid or otherwise compensated for it.

But you also need to be very clear what it is I am saying to you. What business is this of yours and why are you looking to say anything to the Partners? You are talking about this in terms that strongly suggest that you are not affected by this. Everything you have said is about how this affects other people - not you. I am not siding with the employer in saying this - I am asking you what you intend to do if the employer decides to take serious issue with the "advice" you give them - and why you think you should be giving it to them in the first place? Right or wrong - and I can't be sure now based on what you are saying which it is - the employer has decided to do this and I don't see the salesman who ended up arriving in a hotel at midnight here asking the question. And you are looking to stop them doing it? Why aren't the people who are affected by this saying something?

[catgirl1976]

Re: Travel for work and the law

Sorry - I do get what you are saying about being the one to stick my head above the parapet and I am taking your point and may well not raise this.

To be clear, they live locally to our office and are expected to be in the office 1 or 2 days a week. 3 or 4 days a week they should be out visiting clients. They can be in Aberdeen one day and Cornwall the next so there is a lot of driving. They are expected to do meetings in the day then travel in the evenings

I hope that makes it a bit clearer - so for the lack of clarity

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Travel for work and the law

Just shooting from the hip, do not know the answer

If you are doing all this traveling in the course of your employment,

Would not British Domestic Driving hours come into play and vicarious liability if it is in relation to your employment

Just a question, and shooting from the hip

[Eloise01]

Re: Travel for work and the law

Just shooting from the hip, do not know the answer

If you are doing all this traveling in the course of your employment,

Would not British Domestic Driving hours come into play and vicarious liability if it is in relation to your employment

Just a question, and shooting from the hip

You mean the regulations that cover people who drive for a living, such as goods drivers and passenger transport drivers? No. They wouldn't. These are salespeople.

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Travel for work and the law

Do you get a fuel card, mileage allowance

[Eloise01]

Re: Travel for work and the law

Sorry - I do get what you are saying about being the one to stick my head above the parapet and I am taking your point and may well not raise this.

To be clear, they live locally to our office and are expected to be in the office 1 or 2 days a week. 3 or 4 days a week they should be out visiting clients. They can be in Aberdeen one day and Cornwall the next so there is a lot of driving. They are expected to do meetings in the day then travel in the evenings

I hope that makes it a bit clearer - so for the lack of clarity

Yes, thank you I think I have it all very clear now.

This is law:

• nobody can be required to work more than 48 hours per week (averaged over 17 weeks) unless they have signed an opt out, and if they are so required they may refuse to do so. This is something that your colleagues must raise if it applies to them - it isn't your business and you can't raise it.
• there are additional rules about resting periods between "shifts", but given that what you are describing is not an everyday occurence, other compensatory rest periods may make up for such occurences. This is something that your colleagues must raise if it applies to them - it isn't your business and you can't raise it.
• travel outside of normal working hours does not count a working time.
• nobody can be paid less than the National Minimum Wage, and for the purposes of the NMW travel time would be included in the calculation. So you would take your salary, divide it by the hours they work and if that comes to less than £6.31 per hour (for adults), then the employer is underpaying them. This is something your colleagues must raise - it isn't your business and you can't raise it.

This is your colleagues contractual conditions:

• "they may be required to work overtime as dictated by the needs of the business" - that is a clear term. There is no mention of any remuneration for this overtime or any sort of compensation. Provided this overtime does not breach the conditions outlined above, it is lawful as a requirement. If your colleagues do not like their contractual conditions they must either (a) take action if unlawful, as outlined above, (b) get another job or (c) take it up with the employer and try to negotiate better conditions

This is advice to you:

• Your concern for your colleagues is laudable, and your willingness to put your job on the line for their battles is something to applaud. It is also very foolish. If you have a death wish, join a union, recruit your colleagues, and get elected as a union rep - at least that way you will have the minimal protections that affords to raise issues on behalf of your members. Assuming you haven't been sacked long before you get to that stage. And I am really not being sarcastic here, but unless you happen to be one of the Partners, then marching in and telling them what is what when the people affected aren't prepared to stand up for themselves is very dangerous. Not just to you either - if they think there is unrest within the ranks they will move to quell it, and they won't care who they make an example of. There is always someone on the sidelines - or the dole queue - willing to take their place. And yours.
• How do I know this? Because they don't sound like fair or nice people to work for, but they do sound as if they know the right side of the line when it comes to lawful. I have been dealing with employers like this, and the ones that fall on the other side of the line, for over thirty years. Threaten them and their bottom line, and there are very good odds that you will see their ruthless side.

It isn't a palatable truth, it isn't fair, it isn't right - and life often isn't. Pick your battles, and one which your collegaues aren't prepared to fight on their own behalf isn't one to ever pick! But if you are not in a union, you should join one. Whether now or in the future, you might need one; and you also sound like just the sort of member who might actually get active and enjoy it. There are lots of opportunities in unions for keen members to get better informed, trained and so on.

[Eloise01]

Re: Travel for work and the law

Do you get a fuel card, mileage allowance

No legal requirements for either of these either. And no relevance to the question.

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Travel for work and the law

Just interested, that all, must cut deep into any commission payment if not

If it was me then i would consider future employment options with the current t&c that have been stated

[Eloise01]

Re: Travel for work and the law

Just interested, that all, must cut deep into any commission payment if not

If it was me then i would consider future employment options with the current t&c that have been stated

If no or low mileage is paid, there are tax breaks for people who must travel for work reasons. So they get the money back (rather belatedly, admittedly) through tax coding changes.

And so would I - but not everybody has that choice, and what is described here is not uncommon for some areas of sales. But then I wouldn't stack shelves at the supermarket either. But needs must and people will do what they must to earn an income.