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.

Whistleblower Treated as ‘Complainer’ Receives Substantial Compensation

Whistleblowers perform a vital role in the public interest and managers who persist in viewing their activities merely as inconvenient belly-aching expose themselves to condemnation by Employment Tribunals (ETs). That was certainly so in the case of a warehouse worker whose health and safety concerns were ignored. The man reported a number of health and safety issues to his managers. Amongst other things, he noticed that cardboard and pallets were being stored in a way that prevented access to…

Bar Owner Overturns Liability Finding Following Customer’s Fall on Spilt Drink

Hospitality venues must take reasonable steps to keep their customers reasonably safe – but that is not a counsel of perfection. The High Court powerfully made that point in the case of woman who suffered a painful fracture when she slipped on a spilt drink in a late-night bar. The woman was in a crowded corridor in the bar when she fell in the early hours of the morning, sustaining a broken bone in her foot. She launched a personal injury claim against the bar’s proprietor, alleging negligence…

Financial Consultant Who Failed to Disclose Bankruptcy Fairly Dismissed

You would generally be right to think that what goes on in your life away from your workplace is nobody’s business but your own. In one case, however, a financial consultant’s failure to disclose his bankruptcy to his employer was ruled by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to be a sufficient ground for dismissal. The man, who worked for an estate agency, was suffering financial difficulties after prolonged periods on sick leave and was declared bankrupt at his own behest. His bankruptcy came…