Every morning, employees commute to work but what if the time spent traveling from home to the first customer counted as paid work? A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation tackles this important question.
Thousands of workers, particularly those with frequent travel, are closely monitoring this significant shift in case law. The Court’s decision reinforces the idea that home-to-work travel time could now be recognized as compensable working hours, marking a notable change in employee rights and employer obligations.
Towards a redefinition of working time for the homeless
The Court of Cassation has prompted employers to reconsider how they treat the travel of mobile employees between their homes and clients. In its November 23, 2022, ruling (No. 20-21.924), the court stated that these journeys may be considered working time and, under certain conditions, eligible for payment.
Specifically, if an employee is required to travel directly to a customer at the start of the day or finish the day there, employers might be obligated to recognize this travel as paid work. This landmark decision represents a major shift in interpreting employer responsibilities toward mobile staff.
Reed more: Court of Cassation – Employers Must Pay for Home-Work Travel Time
Go to Home Page: scolinfo
“I always had to be reachable, even in traffic jams.”
“I sometimes spent up to two hours a day traveling across the region between my home and client meetings,” says Karim, a maintenance technician for an industrial refrigeration company in Île-de-France. “My work phone had to stay on constantly, I received last-minute instructions, and it was impossible to truly switch off.”
“We were told it didn’t count as work, but I was already mentally and professionally engaged. For years, I made these trips without any compensation. Today, justice finally seems to be proving us right.”
Conditions well regulated by the courts
The decision comes with important nuances. The Court of Cassation clarified the conditions under which a journey can be considered working time:
- The employee must be available to the employer during travel.
- The employee must follow company instructions while en route.
- The employee cannot engage in personal activities during the journey without restriction.
In short, not all travel is eligible for compensation. Complete freedom of movement or lack of immediate obligations would exclude any right to payment.
An obligation to provide compensation when the usual time is exceeded
Beyond recognizing certain journeys as actual work, the Court of Cassation emphasizes that employers must provide compensation either monetary or in the form of additional rest time when travel exceeds the standard home-to-work commute.
This compensation can take different forms, illustrated in the following table:
| Situation | Obligation for the employer | Implementation method |
|---|---|---|
| Itinerant route with instructions | Possible remuneration | If use of work phone or instructions received |
| Longer than usual journey time | Mandatory consideration | Rest or compensation provided for by agreement or unilateral decision |
| Usual, unrestricted route | No obligation | Rule unchanged |
Judicial control intensifies
In a separate ruling dated March 30, 2022 (No. 20-15.022), the Court of Cassation empowered judges to evaluate the adequacy of compensation provided to employees for travel. A mere formal payment is no longer sufficient if its calculation is considered unreasonable or trivial.
Judges can now use INSEE statistics to determine the average journey time in a specific region. If the compensation is deemed insufficient, they have the authority to impose a fair and proportionate scale that reflects local realities and circumstances.
The burden of proof lies with the employee.
Employees must demonstrate that travel time qualifies as actual work. Claims for back pay require tangible evidence, such as call logs, geolocation data, timed schedules, or any other documentation that shows obligations during the journey.
Karim, a technician in Seine-et-Marne, explains: “I started tracking my hours, saving text messages from dispatch, and recording my connection times. It’s the only way to build a solid case if I want to bring this before the industrial tribunal.”
Case law that redraws the contours of professional mobility
Although this Court of Cassation ruling currently applies only to mobile employees, it marks a significant shift in recognizing the often-overlooked reality of mandatory travel. Employers are not required to pay for standard commutes to a fixed workplace, but they must now reconsider their policies for employees who travel as part of their duties.
Unions are actively addressing the issue, while some employers worry about a potential surge in litigation, particularly if their HR policies have not yet aligned with the Court’s decision. This evolving case law could signal future legislative changes or even spark a broader political debate on acknowledging the demanding nature of certain work-related journeys.
FAQ’s
What did the Court of Cassation rule about home-to-work travel?
The Court of Cassation ruled that travel between home and a client or work site may be considered paid working time if specific conditions are met, giving mobile employees potential compensation rights.
Who is affected by this ruling?
This decision primarily affects mobile employees, such as technicians, sales representatives, and other staff required to travel directly to clients or sites during working hours.
Does the ruling apply to regular commuting to a fixed office?
No. Employers are not required to pay for standard commutes between home and a fixed workplace. The ruling applies only to travel mandated by work duties.
Can employers provide compensation other than money?
Yes. Employers can offer monetary compensation or provide rest time equivalent to the travel period exceeding the normal commute.
How can employees prove their travel counts as work?
Employees need tangible evidence, such as call logs, geolocation data, schedules, dispatch messages, or other documents that show they were performing work-related duties.
Can judges assess if the compensation provided is fair?
Yes. Since the March 30, 2022 ruling, judges can evaluate the adequacy of travel compensation and use INSEE statistics to ensure payment reflects local travel realities.
What happens if an employer pays insufficient compensation?
If compensation is deemed derisory or insufficient, judges have the authority to impose a fair and proportionate scale, ensuring employees receive proper remuneration.
Conclusion
The Court of Cassation rulings signal a major shift in recognizing the value of travel time for mobile employees. While not all journeys are compensable, the decision clarifies that mandatory travel directly related to work duties can be counted as paid working hours. Employees must provide evidence of their obligations, and employers may need to adjust their HR policies to align with these standards.
