Background
This case concerned whether time spent travelling to a workplace constituted working time for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.
Taylors Services Ltd employed workers to travel to farms to prepare poultry for transport. The workers did not have fixed workplaces and often travelled long distances to different farms. HMRC investigated whether these workers were being paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) for the full duration of their working time, including travel. Following its investigation, HMRC issued enforcement notices to the employer for failing to pay workers the NMW for time spent travelling from their homes to farms. HMRC also issued penalty notices. The employer appealed.
The Employment Tribunal agreed with HMRC that the time spent travelling should be treated as “time work” under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. However, the employer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), which overturned the decision. HMRC then appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed HMRC’s appeal. It held that:
- Travel time not “time work”: The regulations did not require employers to treat travel from home to the first work location (and from the last job back home) as working time for the purpose of NMW. The workers were not “working” simply by virtue of being in transit to and from work locations.
- Lack of control during travel: The court considered whether workers were under the control of the employer during travel. It found that while the employer directed where they needed to go, the travel itself wasn’t part of the duties performed—they were free to do what they wanted during the commute, subject only to a duty to be in the vehicle.
- No requirement for payment: Because the travel was to a place where work was performed, rather than work in itself, the employer was not required to pay the NMW for that time under the current legal framework.
Why This Matters
This case confirms that not all travel time qualifies as working time under the National Minimum Wage Regulations. The judgment may leave some categories of precarious or low-paid workers without pay for substantial periods of required travel. In this case, some of the workers were required to travel up to 8 hours per day. While the court applied the current law, it raises questions about whether legislative reform is needed to ensure fair pay practices in industries reliant on mobile workforces.
