The UK’s love-hate relationship with Europe has been under much strain recently. The build-up to the ‘in-out’ referendum will be eagerly anticipated by many business leaders. The case for remaining part of the Union has often been hindered by the growing influence of the European Courts on UK business. A recent ruling by the EU’s High Court could have ramifications for our own sector. This time, the Court has ruled that the time workers who have no fixed place of work spend travelling to a job can now count as part of the working day. Our own Government has warned that this could drive up costs for businesses. Under the EU Working Time Directive, employees cannot work more than 48 hours in a week unless they have chosen to opt out. The new ruling could seriously challenge this time limit and if an employee hasn’t opted out it could mean the employer has workers who are exceeding the limit and are not getting a required daily rest period of 11 hours.
Current Government guidelines state that time spent travelling at work does count towards the 48-hour target, but travel outside working hours does not. The EU ruling contradicts this. Initially, the case was brought to court by the installers of the Spanish burglar alarm company Tyco. Workers travelled for up to three hours to reach an installation, and Tyco said their working day started as soon as they arrived at the property. The court said that travelling time counts as ‘work’ for employees such as tradesmen who don’t have a fixed office. Legal experts have stated that the decision shouldn’t lead to workers being paid more for travelling, as the legislation does not govern pay. However, this could depend on the wording of contracts of employment. Employers could have problems if workers are paid for ‘all hours of work’. Window fitting teams and field sales people could therefore fall into the group of workers affected by the ruling. It is another example of the escalating number of regulations and amount of red-tape influencing our industry. Not all additions however are unwelcome. Often when they are product specific they can enhance the overall offering and make fenestration products more attractive, especially when they focus on safety and security – Document Q being a case in point. I understand the need to protect workers’ rights, but the cost to business needs to be considered as well as the need to avoid a European ‘one-size fits all’ approach to directives and rulings.