Business travel

Spom

I normally work 9-5 with a few business trips through-out the year.

I am in process of currently trying to organize a short-haul trip for next week which was sprung on me last minute. I am attending several meetings that day and my employer seems to be expecting me to fly out and fly back same day.

I normally wouldn't have any issue but I feel that it's a bit unreasonable in this instance as due to several factors out of my control it would result in me having to be up at 4am that morning and not reach my home until after 10pm that night. I don't get overtime and I won't get any time in lieu.

Usually if this happened I would have been permitted to stay in a hotel/apartment close to the offices the meetings are being held in the night before. I had expected that it would be the same on this occasion so that I could at least get up at a reasonable hour, especially given that I will already be arriving back late Friday night with the trip eating into my weekend.

Do you think it is fair of me to request this from my employer?

heffo500

I had a similar experience however I was only in door so couldn't really complain.

I think it's very unfair to be honest and if something happened to you say for instance driving home from the airport would your company be liable?

I think you should raise it with your manager and have your concerns written down in advance and take it from there.

runawaybishop

I wouldn't work an 18 hour day for anyone. Request an overnight stay with time or refuse.

Masala

Tell them u taking the next day off to recover from the travel

mikeymouse

Masala wrote: »

Tell them u taking the next day off to recover from the travel

The'll prob say 'go ahead, fine' see you Mon

EagererBeaver

Part and parcel of any job to be honest really.

I travel regularly on Mondays on a 6.30am flight and get home about 9-10 that night. I prefer to stay the extra night in my own bed on the Sunday and if I'm in bits I'll work from home on the Tuesday. However, if I wanted to fly on Sunday night and stay in a hotel, that would be fine too. Don't expect any time in lieu due to having to travel on a Sunday though.

Lol at the "18 hour day" comment by the way. Does that poster think they clock in the moment the alarm goes off?!

runawaybishop

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Part and parcel of any job to be honest really.

I travel regularly on Mondays on a 6.30am flight and get home about 9-10 that night. I prefer to stay the extra night in my own bed on the Sunday and if I'm in bits I'll work from home on the Tuesday. However, if I wanted to fly on Sunday night and stay in a hotel, that would be fine too. Don't expect any time in lieu due to having to travel on a Sunday though.

Lol at the "18 hour day" comment by the way. Does that poster think they clock in the moment the alarm goes off?!

Travel from home on a business trip is work time. It's only part and parcel of a company that abuses its employees.

EagererBeaver

It's generally specified that it is not working time. If you work in a role where business travel is required (this will/should be established at the outset) this will almost certainly be the case. If you sign the contract, you agree to the terms

Roles with this requirement tend to be more professional/management type roles and thus adequate and appropriation is already built into the remuneration package. If you're a barman earning 7e an hour and you get asked to travel for some reason, then yes, that would be different.

Gravelly

I regularly (once a month or so) do those kind of trips, where I fly to London or Paris or elsewhere, do a few meetings and fly home that night. These days can often come to 18-20 hours or more, from the time I leave home until I get back. I always take the following day off, bar answering a few calls if I need to. This would be fairly standard in most companies in my experience.

runawaybishop

EagererBeaver wrote: »

It's generally specified that it is not working time. If you work in a role where business travel is required (this will/should be established at the outset) this will almost certainly be the case. If you sign the contract, you agree to the terms

Roles with this requirement tend to be more professional/management type roles and thus adequate and appropriation is already built into the remuneration package. If you're a barman earning 7e an hour and you get asked to travel for some reason, then yes, that would be different.

If you have a specific place of work then travel time is work time. Even if it it wasn't and the op has a one hour commute each way it's still 16 hours working for the company.

EagererBeaver

runawaybishop wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

It's generally specified that it is not working time. If you work in a role where business travel is required (this will/should be established at the outset) this will almost certainly be the case. If you sign the contract, you agree to the terms

Roles with this requirement tend to be more professional/management type roles and thus adequate and appropriation is already built into the remuneration package. If you're a barman earning 7e an hour and you get asked to travel for some reason, then yes, that would be different.

If you have a specific place of work then travel time is work time. Even if it it wasn't and the op has a one hour commute each way it's still 16 hours working for the company.

This is just plain wrong. You are not paid the moment the wake up in the morning (as your calculation implies) to the moment you walk in the door at night).

This will all be in the contract the OP signed. There's no infringement of rights here.

As for the original question, is it reasonable to request travelling on the Sunday and an overnight to avoid a 4am start? Absolutely, as long as you don't expect additional compensation, either time in lieu or overtime. Can the employer refuse it? Probably. Would any reasonable employer refuse it? Almost certainly not.

The Bishop Basher

I have my own rule for business travel. I travel out on my time and back on company time. So in your case op I’d have no problem getting the early flight out but I’d be staying overnight and getting a mid morning flight back the following day.

I suppose I’m lucky in that we’re left to manage our travel ourselves so we can pick and choose.

I’ve done the 18 hours days. You get no thanks for it so I just don’t do it anymore.

witchgirl26

I've to do this sometimes with my work. 6.30am flight over and a 7pm flight home. Means I'm gone from my house from 5am until 9.30pm. Is it fun, nope not at all. However I would prefer to sleep in my own bed at night and it's not a regular occurrence so I do it. If it started to become more regular than I might have an issue but 3 times a year isn't too much for me.

OP maybe have a word with your boss about coming in a little later the next day. If travelling for work is in your contract and they need you back in your normal office (or can't justify the overnight stay in the budget) then you my have a fight to get the night's stay.

MrMusician18

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Part and parcel of any job to be honest really.

I travel regularly on Mondays on a 6.30am flight and get home about 9-10 that night. I prefer to stay the extra night in my own bed on the Sunday and if I'm in bits I'll work from home on the Tuesday. However, if I wanted to fly on Sunday night and stay in a hotel, that would be fine too. Don't expect any time in lieu due to having to travel on a Sunday though.

Lol at the "18 hour day" comment by the way. Does that poster think they clock in the moment the alarm goes off?!

If you're travelling for work, you're at work.

OMM 0000

I would word things like this:

You know of course I'm happy to travel for business needs, but having to get up so early is going to make me very tired, which I don't think is best for these meetings. It would be better if I was able to get a good nights sleep and be fresh and positive for the next day. I think it would be better if I stayed the night there so I can give the meeting my best shot.

Etc etc.

So you're being a team player and it seems like you're putting the business first.

EagererBeaver

MrMusician18 wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Part and parcel of any job to be honest really.

I travel regularly on Mondays on a 6.30am flight and get home about 9-10 that night. I prefer to stay the extra night in my own bed on the Sunday and if I'm in bits I'll work from home on the Tuesday. However, if I wanted to fly on Sunday night and stay in a hotel, that would be fine too. Don't expect any time in lieu due to having to travel on a Sunday though.

Lol at the "18 hour day" comment by the way. Does that poster think they clock in the moment the alarm goes off?!

If you're travelling for work, you're at work.

No, you're not.

mfceiling

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No, you're not.

Well the constant advertising on the radio telling employers they are responsible for their employees when they are travelling to work would suggest otherwise.

MrMusician18

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No, you're not.

Note that I said "for work" and not "to work". You are not at work when commuting to your normal place of business, but you are when travelling to other locations. Even if it's outside of clock-in time.

If you do not have a fixed place of work, all travel time, including commuting to appointments is considered work.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Part and parcel of any job to be honest really.

Absolute rubbish. Just because you don't have a problem with it, doesn't mean there's no problem. Opinions like this are the reason unions are so vital.

Check the EU rulings on travelling and see if it covers you OP. Also have a look into the minimum break time between working days. I believe it's 11 hours.

At the very least, you should be travelling home on company time.

EagererBeaver

MrMusician18 wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No, you're not.

Note that I said "for work" and not "to work". You are not at work when commuting to your normal place of business, but you are when travelling to other locations. Even if it's outside of clock-in time.

If you do not have a fixed place of work, all travel time, including commuting to appointments is considered work.

By who?! If your job requires business travel, this will be specified in the contract and will detail your entitlement to any additional compensation as a result.

runawaybishop

EagererBeaver wrote: »

This is just plain wrong. You are not paid the moment the wake up in the morning (as your calculation implies) to the moment you walk in the door at night).

This will all be in the contract the OP signed. There's no infringement of rights here.

As for the original question, is it reasonable to request travelling on the Sunday and an overnight to avoid a 4am start? Absolutely, as long as you don't expect additional compensation, either time in lieu or overtime. Can the employer refuse it? Probably. Would any reasonable employer refuse it? Almost certainly not.

Actually if you have no fixed place of work the time you leave the house is work time until you get home again and subject to breaks, pay etc. European courts found this in the TYCO case back in 2015. It's different if you're have a fixed place of work and excludes your commute but if you are driving to the airport for a customer meeting you are at your employers disposal and it's company time.

Tabnabs

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No, you're not.

You can keep on insisting your opinion is correct, but the law doesn't agree with you.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34210002

MrMusician18

EagererBeaver wrote: »

By who?! If your job requires business travel, this will be specified in the contract and will detail your entitlement to any additional compensation as a result.

It might well be, but the law provides for minimum entitlements.

EagererBeaver

Kendall Juicy Rifle wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Part and parcel of any job to be honest really.

Absolute rubbish. Just because you don't have a problem with it, doesn't mean there's no problem. Opinions like this are the reason unions are so vital.

Check the EU rulings on travelling and see if it covers you OP. Also have a look into the minimum break time between working days. I believe it's 11 hours.

At the very least, you should be travelling home on company time.

And opinions like this are why people get fed up with Luas and Dublin Bus drivers.

The OP has stated this is an unusual request because of the timing. Business travel is part of his job. This trip has been sprung on him last minute. Sometimes **** happens and something comes up. His employer has made an inconvenient, but not necessarily unreasonable request. The OP is perfectly entitled to reasonably expect some flexibility in return.

The screaming response from several people on this thread of "refuse or demand x, y and z" is so telling. All this would serve to do is sour relations.

If the OP has a good relationship with the employer and is happy in the job, just do it. If you can work from home the next day or come in late or leave early, great. No reasonable employer will take issue with this. But running about the place demanding that his 9 hours or whatever of travel time counts as working time and he's thus entitled to overtime or time in lieu, or both is just absolute nonsense

EagererBeaver

Tabnabs wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No, you're not.

You can keep on insisting your opinion is correct, but the law doesn't agree with you.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34210002

Well done on your frantically unsuccessful attempt to Google a legal response to an opinion you disagree with. Did you even read it?

"Time spent travelling to and from first and last appointments by workers without a fixed office should be regarded as working time, the European Court of Justice has ruled."

This is, presumably, not the case for the OP.

Tabnabs

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Well done on your frantically unsuccessful attempt to Google a legal response to an opinion you disagree with. Did you even read it?

"Time spent travelling to and from first and last appointments by workers without a fixed office should be regarded as working time, the European Court of Justice has ruled."

This is, presumably, not the case for the OP.

EU Working Time Directive, something you are clearly not familiar with.

In the case of the OP, it would fit perfectly as they are travelling to a location(s) which do not normally fall within the definition of a fixed office.

You are the only one here telling the OP to suck it up, maybe you need a little time to rethink your position?

runawaybishop

EagererBeaver wrote: »

And opinions like this are why people get fed up with Luas and Dublin Bus drivers.

The OP has stated this is an unusual request because of the timing. Business travel is part of his job. This trip has been sprung on him last minute. Sometimes **** happens and something comes up. His employer has made an inconvenient, but not necessarily unreasonable request. The OP is perfectly entitled to reasonably expect some flexibility in return.

The screaming response from several people on this thread of "refuse or demand x, y and z" is so telling. All this would serve to do is sour relations.

If the OP has a good relationship with the employer and is happy in the job, just do it. If you can work from home the next day or come in late or leave early, great. No reasonable employer will take issue with this. But running about the place demanding that his 9 hours or whatever of travel time counts as working time and he's thus entitled to overtime or time in lieu, or both is just absolute nonsense

No reasonable employer would expect an employee to run around for them for 18 hours without offering an overnight stay or extra time off.

You are flat out wrong about travel time. Look up ISS Ireland limited v gfencheva. The HSA website also states a commute is not work time except when the journey starts from home and you are travelling to a work location that is not your normal place of work.

The travel time counts towards the working hours max also.

MrMusician18

EagererBeaver wrote: »

And opinions like this are why people get fed up with Luas and Dublin Bus drivers.

The OP has stated this is an unusual request because of the timing. Business travel is part of his job. This trip has been sprung on him last minute. Sometimes **** happens and something comes up. His employer has made an inconvenient, but not necessarily unreasonable request. The OP is perfectly entitled to reasonably expect some flexibility in return.

The screaming response from several people on this thread of "refuse or demand x, y and z" is so telling. All this would serve to do is sour relations.

If the OP has a good relationship with the employer and is happy in the job, just do it. If you can work from home the next day or come in late or leave early, great. No reasonable employer will take issue with this. But running about the place demanding that his 9 hours or whatever of travel time counts as working time and he's thus entitled to overtime or time in lieu, or both is just absolute nonsense

Just because you've been shown to be wrong you dismiss it as absolute nonsense.

I wouldn't consider demanding I'm compensated for my working time as an unreasonable request. Do you work for free?

I've shown the flexible attitude you've advocated for in the past, and you know what, it gets completely taken advantage of. If I were the OP my course of action would be to take two half days in the week following to ensure I got my toil.

Gravelly

Bet you're sorry you asked now OP

EagererBeaver

Tabnabs wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Well done on your frantically unsuccessful attempt to Google a legal response to an opinion you disagree with. Did you even read it?

"Time spent travelling to and from first and last appointments by workers without a fixed office should be regarded as working time, the European Court of Justice has ruled."

This is, presumably, not the case for the OP.

EU Working Time Directive, something you are clearly not familiar with.

In the case of the OP, it would fit perfectly as they are travelling to a location(s) which do not normally fall within the definition of a fixed office.

You are the only one here telling the OP to suck it up, maybe you need a little time to rethink your position?

How is the working time directive being infringed here?! It specifies that you can't have employees work more than 48 hours a week on average over a period of something like 3 months here

Even if the employer was to refuse every request and the OP travelled on Monday morning (let's say he leaves the house at 5am) and walks back in his front door at 10pm and is back in work at 9am on the Tuesday, the company isn't in breach of the directive.

Wow,

Things de-escalate here quick!!

OP, i used to be in your situation, more often that I liked TBH.

Are you looking for advice, suggestions etc?
I would advise that you say it your employer, nicely, that as you are expecting a long day of it with travel, flights, meetings, etc that do they mind if you stay at the hotel the night before (if you want to) and would they mind you logging on at home the following day.

Really, if it is private industry they shouldn't have an issue, be it you being on the phone the following day and at home or staying in a hotel, and if its public usually they have a list of previous conditions to things like this.
Hope this helps.

The Bishop Basher

EagererBeaver wrote: »

But running about the place demanding that his 9 hours or whatever of travel time counts as working time and he's thus entitled to overtime or time in lieu, or both is just absolute nonsense

Exactly.. there should be flexibility and good will on both sides. If there isn’t you really need to find another job.

runawaybishop

Rennaws wrote: »

Exactly.. there should be flexibility and good will on both sides. If there isn’t you really need to find another job.

He is claiming the employer has no responsibilities legally, that is not correct

The Bishop Basher

runawaybishop wrote: »

He is claiming the employer has no responsibilities legally, that is not correct

I agree that they are responsible for our safety and well being while traveling. We get well briefed on that and have plenty of supports in place should anything go wrong.

But talking about hours worked, clocking in, clocking off, in lieu entitlements etc is just going to rub an employer up the wrong way.

It’s fine for a super market or post office but not when you need the kind flexibility required for traveling with work.

EagererBeaver

runawaybishop wrote: »

Rennaws wrote: »

Exactly.. there should be flexibility and good will on both sides. If there isn’t you really need to find another job.

He is claiming the employer has no responsibilities legally, that is not correct

Did I? Where exactly? Feel free to point it out.

tomwaits48

I do this all the time. It's expected at a senior level.

runawaybishop

Rennaws wrote: »

I agree that they are responsible for our safety and well being while traveling. We get well briefed on that and have plenty of supports in place should anything go wrong.

But talking about hours worked, clocking in, clocking off, in lieu entitlements etc is just going to rub an employer up the wrong way.

It’s fine for a super market or post office but not when you need the kind flexibility required for traveling with work.

I disagree, both morally and legally I would never expect my employees to spend their own time travelling for the business.

If the ops employer pushes back and expects him in the next day (which seems to be what is being indicated) and gives no remuneration then he should know if this is allowed.

runawaybishop

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Did I? Where exactly? Feel free to point it out.

Every post where you think travel time is off the clock.

EagererBeaver

runawaybishop wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Did I? Where exactly? Feel free to point it out.

Every post where you think travel time is off the clock.

You're yet to point to any legal source that confirms your assertion yet you think his working day will start when he wakes up in the morning?

runawaybishop

EagererBeaver wrote: »

You're yet to point to any legal source that confirms your assertion yet you think his working day will start when he wakes up in the morning?

Actually I referred you to 2 specific cases.

It's covered under the working time act. Interpretation of 'working time'

EagererBeaver

runawaybishop wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

You're yet to point to any legal source that confirms your assertion yet you think his working day will start when he wakes up in the morning?

Actually I referred you to 2 specific cases.

It's covered under the working time act. Interpretation of 'working time'

Neither of which were correct.

runawaybishop

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Neither of which were correct.

You mantained that travel was not working time, it is working time under both cases I referred to, and the op is covered under one for them.

Go read the act and stop giving incorrect advice.

EagererBeaver

runawaybishop wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Neither of which were correct.

You mantained that travel was not working time, it is working time under both cases I referred to, and the op is covered under one for them.

Go read the act and stop giving incorrect advice.

No it's not, it's considered working time, as I pointed out, for those who do not have a fixed work location. The OP (presumably and almost certainly) does.

The fact that he would traveling to a different office or a 3rd party location is irrelevant

runawaybishop

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No it's not, it's considered working time, as I pointed out, for those who do not have a fixed work location. The OP (presumably and almost certainly) does.

The fact that he would traveling to a different office or a 3rd party location is irrelevant

Wrong. There are two scenarios, fixed and non fixed. When you have a fixed office travel outside your commute is working time. When you are not fixed all travel for the company is working time as it's at the direction of the employer.

EagererBeaver

runawaybishop wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No it's not, it's considered working time, as I pointed out, for those who do not have a fixed work location. The OP (presumably and almost certainly) does.

The fact that he would traveling to a different office or a 3rd party location is irrelevant

Wrong. There are two scenarios, fixed and non fixed. When you have a fixed office travel outside your commute is working time. When you are not fixed all travel for the company is working time as it's at the direction of the employer.

This simply isn't true unless you supposedly have a fixed office location but are in reality travelling all the time. The OP has clearly stated he has to travel a few times a year. He has a fixed office location and therefore doesn't get paid for his traveling time on those few occasions he has to travel. End of story.

You'll not find a court in Europe who would uphold this fantasy you're trying to spin.

runawaybishop

EagererBeaver wrote: »

This simply isn't true unless you supposedly have a fixed office location but are in reality travelling all the time. The OP has clearly stated he has to travel a few times a year. He has a fixed office location and therefore doesn't get paid for his traveling time on those few occasions he has to travel. End of story.

You'll not find a court in Europe who would uphold this fantasy you're trying to spin.

You are wrong, I have linked to the act. Feel free to show evidence that travelling at the direction of the employer is on your own time.

ArrBee

OP....

Are you able to commute to the office 1st, then travel to the airport on company time, claim mileage etc? and do the reverse on the way back.:)
Then there would be no argument about whether you were travelling on company time. lol


To answer your original question, yes. it is unreasonable for an employer to expect what you described without OT or TOIL.
I'd say that they should provide you the option of either staying over or TOIL. A good employer would let you choose which.

EagererBeaver

runawaybishop wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote: »

This simply isn't true unless you supposedly have a fixed office location but are in reality travelling all the time. The OP has clearly stated he has to travel a few times a year. He has a fixed office location and therefore doesn't get paid for his traveling time on those few occasions he has to travel. End of story.

You'll not find a court in Europe who would uphold this fantasy you're trying to spin.

You are wrong, I have linked to the act. Feel free to show evidence that travelling at the direction of the employer is on your own time.

Which doesn't say what you're claiming it does.

The Bishop Basher

runawaybishop wrote: »

I disagree, both morally and legally I would never expect my employees to spend their own time travelling for the business.

If the ops employer pushes back and expects him in the next day (which seems to be what is being indicated) and gives no remuneration then he should know if this is allowed.

We must work in different sectors so. It's never been any different anywhere i've worked and I wouldn't want it to be either.

We aren't in unions because we don't need to be. There's give and take and everyone is happy with that.

If anyone has an issue they can leave but they generally don't, and those that do often come back.

BailMeOut

Op, do you like doing these trips? Do you enjoy getting away from the office and flying off to different places for work? As some pointed out you may well be in your rights to demand all sorts of stuff however your boss may think twice about asking you again. Not saying that's right but that's what will most likely happen.

I still travel a good amount with work although not as much as I used to when I was younger and early mornings and very late nights have been the norm. I still travel a to USA 4-5 times a year which is 18-20 hours each way door to door and will be at USA office first thing next morning which sucks as I am completely shattered and even more shattered coming home however I do always enjoy the perks of being trusted by my boss and employer to do these trips.

Just be mindful of what you ask for as one of your colleagues maybe more than delighted to go in your place.

PS: I'd always choose to fly home late rather than staying in a depressing hotel by myself. Get in, get the job done and get home again and take the next morning or day off in your own home to rest if you can.

runawaybishop

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Which doesn't say what you're claiming it does.

Don't worry about it so, keep travelling for free on your own time and I'll keep getting toil.