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.

Care Home Operator Heavily Fined Following Resident’s Tragic Fire Death

Care home operators who fail in their duty to keep residents safe can expect severe punishment. That was certainly so in the case of a wheelchair-dependent man who was engulfed by flames whilst smoking outside the care home where he lived. The man, who had suffered a stroke, had been resident in the home for almost a decade. He was a known smoker and had been left alone in a sheltered outdoor area to enjoy a cigarette. He caught fire and, despite desperate efforts to extinguish the blaze, it…

Minimally Conscious Accident Victim Gets Seven-Figure Compensation

Accidents at work can have devastating consequences and it is very often true that no amount of money can ever make up for the pain and suffering involved. A case concerning a man in a minimally conscious state showed, however, that specialist lawyers can at least help to soften the blow. The middle-aged man was working as acting foreman for a manufacturing company when the accident occurred. He was helping out short-handed contractors in the factory where he was employed when he fell from…

Cleaner Unfairly Dismissed Following ‘Engineered’ Disciplinary Process

Employers may be put under pressure by an unhappy client to take action against a particular employee. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, that is all the more reason why a scrupulously fair procedure must be followed. The case concerned a cleaner who underwent a PCR test at a walk-in COVID-19 testing centre. He later completed a shift at a supermarket. That evening, he was notified that the test was positive and swiftly informed his employer, a cleaning contractor. He duly…