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.

Houses in Multiple Occupation – A Cautionary Tale for Errant Landlords

Pressure on the housing market has led to the conversion of many redundant office buildings into flats and the number of such projects is likely to be greatly increased by shifting work patterns brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. A Court of Appeal ruling, however, powerfully signalled that rules in respect of health, safety and living standards at such premises will be rigorously enforced. The case concerned an office block that had been converted into 47 flats. After a housing officer…

Service Charges Dispute Focuses on Report of ‘Intolerable’ Fire Risk

Tenants are only obliged to pay service charges that have been reasonably incurred. That principle was the focus of a guideline case concerning two apartment blocks which, according to an expert report, posed an intolerable fire risk. Previous fire inspections of the blocks had uncovered no serious problems so that the report, which found combustible materials in their external walls, came as a bolt from the blue. The landlord’s response was to place a 24-hour waking watch on the blocks as an…

Coastguard Volunteer a ‘Worker’ When Performing Paid Activities

A person who performs a voluntary role may nonetheless meet the definition of a ‘worker’ under Section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, depending on the individual circumstances. Recently, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that a man who volunteered for the Coastguard Rescue Service (CRS) was a worker when performing activities for which he was entitled to claim payment. The man had held voluntary roles within the CRS since 1985. After he was invited to a disciplinary hearing,…