Peripatetic workers, with no fixed or habitual place of work, can include the time they spend travelling between their home and their places of work as working time, according to the opinion of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The case stems from Spain where workers from two security system installation and maintenance businesses argued that the time they spent travelling from their home to their first customer, and from their last customer back to their home, should be considered part of their working day.  

The companies originally operated a network of provincial offices where the workers would meet each morning. From this office they were given their daily tasks and collected their vehicles. Under this arrangement, the workers’ daily hours were calculated from the time of their arrival at the office until the time they returned their vehicle later that day.

The companies’ decision to close the provincial office, however, meant that the workers’ daily hours were then calculated from the time they arrived at their first customer’s premises.

The workers are employed to install and maintain security equipment in homes and businesses within a geographical area assigned to them. In some instances, the distance between the worker’s home and a client can be more than 100 kilometres.

The workers are provided with a vehicle and a Blackberry mobile phone that allows them to communicate remotely with the company’s head office in Madrid. The workers receive their daily tasks via an application installed on their phones, with a separate application used to input details relating to the work carried out.   

Therefore, with the closure of the provincial office, the vehicle provided to each worker can be considered a de facto office.

While this is just the opinion of the Advocate General it will likely be followed by the CJEU when it comes to consider the case later this year.

Research subscribers can find out more information about the legal issues and potential consequences this opinion could have for both staffing firms and contingent workforce buyers by reading our Staffing Law Update.