EvEvery morning, employees commute to work but what if the time spent traveling from home to the first client or workplace had to be compensated? A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation sheds light on this critical issue.
This decision has caught the attention of thousands of employees, particularly those who travel regularly. The court’s ruling signals a potential shift in labor law, reinforcing the idea that commute time can be counted as paid working hours. New case law increasingly favors traveling employees, making this development both discreet and impactful.
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 ruling dated November 23, 2022 (No. 20-21.924), the high court established that these journeys can qualify as working time and may be compensated, provided certain conditions are met.
Practically, if an employee is required to travel directly to a client at the start of the day or finish the day at a client site this time could be considered paid work. The court’s decision marks a significant shift in interpreting employers’ responsibilities toward employees who travel.
Reed also: Over Half of Students Use AI Apps to Cheat Since School Year Began
Go to Home Page: scolinfo
“I always had to be reachable, even in traffic jams.”
“I often spent up to two hours a day traveling across the region between my home and client appointments. My work phone had to stay on constantly, I received last-minute instructions, and it was impossible to truly disconnect,” says Karim, a maintenance technician for an industrial refrigeration company in Île-de-France.
“We were told it didn’t count as work, yet I was fully engaged mentally and professionally. For years, I made these trips without any compensation. Now, it seems justice is finally recognizing our situation,” he adds.
Conditions are well-regulated by the courts.
The decision comes with important nuances. The Court of Cassation clarified the conditions under which travel can be considered working time:
- The employee must be available to the employer during the journey.
- The employee must follow company instructions.
- The employee cannot engage in personal activities without restriction.
In short, not all travel qualifies for compensation. If an employee has complete freedom of movement or is under no immediate work obligation, the journey does not entitle them to payment.
An obligation to provide compensation when the usual time is exceeded
Beyond recognizing travel as actual work, the Court of Cassation emphasizes that employers must provide **compensation either financial or as additional rest **when travel time exceeds the standard home-to-work duration.
This compensation can take different forms, as 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 ruling dated March 30, 2022 (No. 20-15.022), the Court of Cassation authorized judges to evaluate the adequacy of compensation paid to employees for travel. A mere token payment is no longer sufficient if its calculation is deemed unreasonable.
Judges can now reference INSEE statistics to determine the average journey time in a specific region. If the compensation is found insufficient, the court can mandate a fair and regionally appropriate scale.
The burden of proof lies with the employee.
Employees must demonstrate that travel time qualifies as actual work. Without concrete evidence, claims for back pay will not succeed. Acceptable proof can include call logs, geolocation data, time-stamped schedules, or any document showing obligations during the journey.
Karim, a technician from Seine-et-Marne, knows this well: “I started recording my hours, saving text messages from dispatch, and tracking my connection times. This documentation is the only way to support a claim if I bring the matter to the industrial tribunal.”
Case law that redraws the contours of professional mobility
Although this updated interpretation of labor law currently applies only to mobile employees, it challenges the traditional view of daily travel, particularly forced journeys. Employers are not required to pay for standard commutes between home and a fixed workplace, but mobile staff may now be entitled to compensation under certain conditions.
Unions have already started advocating for workers’ rights, while some employers worry about a potential surge in litigation, especially if their HR policies have not yet adapted to the Court’s ruling. This case law could pave the way for future legislative changes or even spark a political debate on recognizing the demanding nature of certain work-related journeys.
FAQ’s
What is the Court of Cassation ruling on homework travel?
The Court of Cassation ruled that travel between home and the first or last client can be considered working time and may be compensated if certain conditions are met.
Who is affected by this ruling?
The ruling primarily concerns mobile employees who travel directly to or from clients as part of their job. Standard commutes to a fixed office are not included.
When does travel time qualify as paid work?
Travel qualifies if the employee is at the employer’s disposal, must follow company instructions, and cannot engage in personal activities during the journey.
How can employees prove their travel time?
Employees should maintain call logs, geolocation records, time-stamped schedules, text messages, or any other documentation that shows work obligations during travel.
Can employers provide compensation in forms other than money?
Yes. Employers can offer financial payment or additional rest time when travel exceeds the normal home-work duration.
How do courts assess if compensation is sufficient?
Judges can rely on INSEE statistics or local data to determine average journey times. If the compensation is deemed insufficient, the court can mandate a fair, regionally adjusted scale.
Does this ruling apply to all employees?
No. It applies only to employees with mobile work responsibilities, such as technicians, sales representatives, or field agents. Standard office commuters are not affected.
Conclusion
The Court of Cassation’s rulings mark a significant shift in the recognition of home-to-client and client-to-home travel as potential paid working time. While the decision currently applies to mobile employees, it highlights the growing importance of employee rights in previously overlooked aspects of daily work life.
