Expenses

AlfaR147

Hi guys. Any help here will be appreciated. I work for a company that at times requires me to travel a bit. For the last 5 years, if I am required to travel for training courses etc., I was paid a full working day, 8-9 hours. Recently, we were appointed a new boss who has decided we only get the hours we are actually on the course. A number of bosses have always given us the full day but this guy is not budging on this. Is there a legal term for taking this from us? Any advice will be greatly appreciated. If I have left anything out, PM me. Thanks.

Nody

Well you've left out the most important part; travel time and course length. If the course is lets say with in an 1h from the office and takes 4h I'd fully support your boss; on the other side if you need to travel for 2h there, 2h back to the office and the course is 4h we have a different ball game.

Ray Palmer

Nody wrote: »

Well you've left out the most important part; travel time and course length. If the course is lets say with in an 1h from the office and takes 4h I'd fully support your boss; on the other side if you need to travel for 2h there, 2h back to the office and the course is 4h we have a different ball game.

I don't see any difference. You are spending a hour doing something for the company the company should be paying.

The only issue there tends to be with travel time is where you travel from. If you go directly from home there can be arguments made about travel time. The most logical thing is the distance from the office is used and this is backed up by tax regulations.

There is legislation covering expenses. If you are traveling to a place that is not your normal place of work it is a chargeable and a tax deduction allowable.

The company should be paying travel and subsistence if it is a private car

Nody

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I don't see any difference. You are spending a hour doing something for the company the company should be paying.

Yes but if he only spends 6h (inc. travel time) why should the company pay him for 8h of work for that day? That's why I asked him about the travel time to the training and training duration and why the two situations are very different.

Ray Palmer

Nody wrote: »

Yes but if he only spends 6h (inc. travel time) why should the company pay him for 8h of work for that day? That's why I asked him about the travel time to the training and training duration and why the two situations are very different.

The OP says the boss is only willing to pay for time on the actual training course excluding travel. You do have a point about it being less than a working day. You should in theory return to the office to complete the day but that doesn't appear to be the question.

In your case the employer would only be paying for 4hours and not the 2 hour travel time. Most companies see it as a working day if the training and travel comes close a full day. It comes down to what is practical and getting back to the office. I don't remember attending a training day that was dramatically less than a working day myself so I can't imagine it comes up that often.

I certainly have had bosses try not to include travel time off site as the working day most notable around time waiting in the airport. They tried to argue the time you have to be at the airport was not company time but my own. I don't know about you but seeing as I don't normally fly to work waiting 2 hours to get a flight is company time to me and always will be as will any extra time I spend traveling for the company's benefit.

AlfaR147

Thanks for the replies guys. I need to clear a few things up I think. Firstly, the journey length is 400 MILES round trip! On the day in question I left home at 6am and didnt get home till 5pm! The company does not pay travel time, but my main question was that all previous bosses have paid us a full day, no matter what length the course is, and other bosses in other areas still do the same. However, my current boss, when questioned about this said, "Thats the way I do it!". What I would really like to know is there a legal phrase I could use to get the point across to him? For the last 5 years, a full day pay was given due to the length of the journey. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks again for the replies guys.

Eoin

I agree that they should pay for time spent travelling if it adds to a normal working day - but AFAIK they don't have to, unless there's an agreement in place, or perhaps if it meant that you'd effectively be on less than the minimum wage.

I don't get any time in lieu or extra payment for international travel. I work in a pretty flexible company though, so I'd get a bit of time off at a later stage - especially if I spent a Saturday or Sunday travelling; but their official line is that it's not paid.

Ray Palmer

Your boss is simply wrong.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_employment/pay_inc_min_wage.html

Note the part about travel time if it is part of the job. They have to pay you for travel time it isn't up for debate. If you have to travel as part of employment it is paid time.

Most companies know this but work around it by being "flexible" when in fact they are not paying you what they should.

If you have to travel to training you are to be paid for the time it would take you to travel from the place of work.

Are they paying travel expenses?

AlfaR147

Thanks Ray. Yeah, they do pay expenses, 50c a mile after the first 20miles. But this doesnt cover a 400mile journey as your day is gone due to travelling so much. Thats what the previous bosses gave as a reason to pay the full day. Thanks for thr reply.

Eoin

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Your boss is simply wrong.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_employment/pay_inc_min_wage.html

Note the part about travel time if it is part of the job. They have to pay you for travel time it isn't up for debate. If you have to travel as part of employment it is paid time.

Most companies know this but work around it by being "flexible" when in fact they are not paying you what they should.

I still think this comes down to what agreement is in place. That links does show that it's counted as work hours, but unless you're on a very low wage and end up under the minimum wage (which appears to be specifically what that link is referring to) because of travel , then they can simply say that travel time is factored into your salary (even if you didn't get an increase compared to if you didn't travel).

You're not entitled to paid overtime either; it's the same thing IMO.

AlfaR147

The main thing, as far as I can see, is the fact that for the previous 5 years, I have received the full day pay, but now, due to the way the boss works, I dont.
That to me is wrong and I'm looking for a phrase or some legal way to put it to him.
Any ideas?

Ray Palmer

Eoin wrote: »

I still think this comes down to what agreement is in place. That links does show that it's counted as work hours, but unless you're on a very low wage and end up under the minimum wage (which appears to be specifically what that link is referring to) because of travel , then they can simply say that travel time is factored into your salary (even if you didn't get an increase compared to if you didn't travel).

You're not entitled to paid overtime either; it's the same thing IMO.

I think it is very clear that it is considered part of payable working day and cannot be excluded from pay. The fact the employer is saying it is not part of a full working day is the question here. The suggestion you are making is that once you are on a wage they can exclude time as part of your working day. In terms of overtime a wage can deal with that but to remove time spent as your working day is a different proposition.

I send you on training and it with travel time it is 11 hours but the boss is saying you didn't work a full day as 4 hours were spent traveling there so you us 1-2 hours back while your day has been longer.

They are effectively cut wages via the use of travel required for work.

Eoin

The suggestion you are making is that once you are on a wage they can exclude time as part of your working day

Sorry, I don't think I worded my post too well. I said that you're correct that the link says the time spent travelling does count as hours worked. But you may not automatically be entitled to be paid extra for that time, and that it may come down to whatever agreement you have in place with your employer.

AlfaR147's manager does not seem to be saying it's not counted as working hours; just that they're not going to be paid for it.

@AlfaR147 - I don't know if you're going to get a definitive answer here. If your manager is actually saying that it's not counted as hours worked, then you can show the link above. I don't know if there's anything specific in legislation that related to there having been a precedent set for the last 5 years.

AlfaR147

Thanks Eoin. I dont think im gonna get anywhere either. Thanks for the feedback anyway. I think Ill just park this but if he tries anymore shennanigans, Ill have to say "OI, YOU, NO!"

Ray Palmer

Eoin wrote: »

Sorry, I don't think I worded my post too well. I said that you're correct that the link says the time spent travelling does count as hours worked. But you may not automatically be entitled to be paid extra for that time, and that it may come down to whatever agreement you have in place with your employer.

AlfaR147's manager does not seem to be saying it's not counted as working hours; just that they're not going to be paid for it.

You are entitled to be paid for hour worked, you may not be entitled to overtime if this exceeds your working day as with any OT. Payment for travel expenses is not pay and is meant to pay for petrol and wear on the car.

This seems specifically that the boss is saying a full day hasn't been worked and travel time is not considered work. If it is working hours the company pays if it results in OT the company standard policy covers OT. It is both payable and considered working there is no other aspects to it. A company can change it's policies no problem but they must remain legal. This is the minimum requirements.

I wouldn't just let this slide but also wouldn't make a big deal of it. Point to the legislation and say how you believe it is and could they verify the policy is correct and legal.

AlfaR147

Thanks Ray. Ill have a chat with my colleauges and see what we will do. I dont want to rock the boat, but I dont want to be taken advantage of either.

Bandana boy

I would go back into the office after/before training, and then put in that you worked a full day. Even if with travel time you are in the office for 5 mins.

Mrs OBumble

I think the phase you are looking for is "custom and practise".

If you've had something for 5 years, then there are issues with suddenly changing it.

Do you belong to a union? Would you get legal advice? even just doing the latter may help to wake your boss up. Or is there a higher-up manager you can complain to?

AlfaR147

Thats what Im looking for Mrs Bumble. Thanks a million. As for going over the bosses head, the option is there but the reprecussions are not worth it really. Ill slip in the phrase 'custom and practice' to him and see what happens. Thanks.