Poultry Workers Not Entitled to NMW for Travel to Farms

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that poultry workers were not ‘working’ while travelling from their homes to farms where they carried out their duties and back again, and were not entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) for the time spent travelling.

The…

Aug 14, 2024

Pexels alexasfotos 2255459 1024x683

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that poultry workers were not ‘working’ while travelling from their homes to farms where they carried out their duties and back again, and were not entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) for the time spent travelling.

The employees worked on poultry farms around the country. Their employer provided a minibus to collect them from their home addresses each day and take them to the first farm, and take them home again from the last farm. These journeys could sometimes take about four hours. HM Revenue and Customs took the view that the time these journeys took should be remunerated at the NMW and issued Notices of Underpayment. The employer appealed to the Employment Tribunal (ET).

Upholding the notices, the ET held that the time spent travelling was ‘time work’, as defined by Regulation 30 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. It found, however, that if the travel time had not been ‘actual work’, it would not have been deemed to be time work under Regulation 34 of the Regulations. The employer made a further appeal to the EAT.

The EAT observed that the Regulations indicated that travel from home to work should not count as time work, whether or not it was to a permanent place of work. It noted that this arguably created an injustice, as if an employer required employees to come to its premises before travelling to assignments, the onward travel would count as time work for the purposes of Regulation 34.

However, the ET had acknowledged that the employees were not engaged in work in the ordinary sense while on the minibus. The ET should have read Regulations 30 and 34 together: had it done so, it would have concluded that the journeys did not constitute time work. Holding that, on a proper interpretation of the law, that was the only possible conclusion, the EAT accordingly remade the decision and allowed the employer’s appeal against the notices.

Health and Safety Fines Are Meant to Hurt – Court of Appeal Ruling

Financial penalties imposed on employers for health and safety breaches are meant to hurt and that is why the scale of their business is highly relevant when it comes to sentencing. In a case on point, a company with an annual turnover of about £1.6 billion was fined £640,000 following a factory floor accident. One of the company’s workers was monitoring the operation of a conveyor belt that kept slipping. That part of the belt was unguarded. He said that a cloth he was holding was dragged into…

ET Lay Member’s LinkedIn Posts Give Rise to Allegation of Apparent Bias

Anyone who serves in a judicial capacity must exercise the greatest care in their use of social media. The point was made by the case of a lay member of an Employment Tribunal (ET) whose posts on LinkedIn gave rise to an allegation of apparent bias. The member was one of an ET panel of three which upheld a woman’s complaints of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal against her former employer. The company was ordered to pay her more than £86,000 in…

Protected Acts, Detrimental Treatment and Victimisation – Guideline Ruling

It is your right to lodge Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings if you feel that you have been mistreated at work and, whether you win or lose, you are also entitled to expect that you will not be detrimentally treated for doing so. That principle was very much to the fore in a guideline Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling. The case concerned a black British IT worker who had twice in the past launched ET claims against his employer. He had raised serious allegations of race and disability…