Subject matter of the dispute and referral for a preliminary ruling
The issue before the Court of Justice centres on whether the time spent by workers travelling from a base established by the employer to the micro-nature reserves where they carry out their duties and the return journey should be considered working time for the purposes of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC.
The autonomous concept of working time in EU law
The Court of Justice notes, as a preliminary point, that the concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’ are autonomous concepts of EU law, the interpretation of which cannot be left to the discretion of the Member States. They must be defined on the basis of objective criteria and the purpose of Directive 2003/88/EC, which is to ensure the protection of the safety and health of workers.
The Court also emphasises that the Directive does not provide for intermediate categories between working time and rest periods, so that every period must necessarily be classified as one or the other, without any grey areas or hybrid solutions.
Concurrence of the constituent elements of working time
In accordance with its established case law, the Court analyses whether the three elements that make up the concept of working time are present during the journeys in question: the performance of the activity or duties, the availability to the employer and the permanence at work.
Firstly, the Court considers that workers are engaged in their activity or duties during travel, insofar as this is essential for the performance of their work. The activity entrusted to them can only be carried out in geographically dispersed natural areas, to which the workers must necessarily travel in order to fulfil the purpose of the employment contract. Consequently, travel is not an ancillary or preparatory activity, but an element inherent to the work itself.
Secondly, the Court concludes that workers are at the employer’s disposal during such travel. They are required to report to a base set by the company at a specified time in order to travel together in a vehicle owned by the employer, according to a predetermined itinerary and schedule. During this time, the workers are subject to the employer’s instructions and have no real possibility of freely managing their time or attending to personal matters, which determines the fulfilment of the availability requirement.
Finally, the Court states that, as the workers do not have a fixed or habitual place of work, the concept of permanence at work cannot be restricted exclusively to the physical place where the material intervention is carried out. Following the doctrine established in the Tyco judgment, travel is part of the normal scope of work, so that workers must be considered ‘at work’ during their journeys to and from the base and the place where the services are provided.
Impact on national case law
In contrast to certain rulings that had denied the consideration of internal or intermediate travel as working time, the CJEU establishes that the decisive factor is not the actual performance of a productive task, but the degree of the worker’s subjection to the business organisation and the absence of a fixed workplace.
The ruling therefore requires a reinterpretation of those case law criteria that had assimilated this type of travel to preparatory or accessory time, especially when the travel is imposed by the employer and is essential for the performance of the work.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE RULING
At Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., we note that the doctrine established by the Court of Justice has significant practical consequences for companies that organise work through mobile teams or itinerant services. The classification of these journeys as working time has a direct impact on the calculation of the working day, compliance with maximum working time limits and the guarantee of minimum rest periods, with the consequent repercussions on remuneration and time control.
CONCLUSION
At Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., as expert labour lawyers, we recommend that companies review their working time organisation systems and adapt their internal practices to European case law in order to avoid collective disputes and liabilities arising from non-compliance with working time regulations. In order to carry out these actions, it is advisable to seek accurate specialist advice on the matter, such as that provided by the Employment Law Department of Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P.