This change in jurisprudence could alter the situation of many employees. A judgment of the Court of Cassation of November 23 is interested in the travel time between the home of an itinerant employee (technicians, vendors, etc.) and the client’s premises to determine whether or not this trip constitutes effective work over time , likely to generate the payment of overtime.
As Marion Kahn-Guerra, a lawyer specializing in labor law at the Desfilis law firm, explains to us, “the Court of Cassation indicates that it is now up to the judge to verify whether, during the travel time between his home and his first or last client, whether the employee is free or not to take care of your personal affairs or if you have to respect your employer’s directives Depending on the answer given to this question, this travel time will be considered as real work or not, and therefore paid as such”.
Alignment with the Court of Justice of the EU
It should be remembered that until this decision, the Court of Cassation has always considered, in accordance with article L.3121-4 of the Labor Code, that the travel time between the worker’s home and his first client, or, conversely, , the night between his last client and his return home, did not constitute actual work time.
“On the other hand, this travel time must give rise to compensation that can be economic or in rest time, if the travel time exceeds the usual travel time between your home and your usual place of work. The reason no. “It is not the same if the employee goes through the company’s facilities before going to his first client, the travel time to go from the company to the client will be considered as effective working time”, specifies the expert.
In reality, the Court of Cassation ended up aligning itself with the position of the CJUE (Court of Justice of the European Union) which considers that the travel time of a traveling employee between his home and the places of the first and last client can, under certain conditions , be recognized as effective working time.
litigation risk
And to continue: “in the case examined by the Court of Cassation, the worker, who did not have a usual place of work, made interventions with clients as part of a course of visits scheduled by his employer and during his travel time between his domicile and the client, had to be at the disposal of his employer without being able to dedicate himself freely to his personal affairs”.
Therefore, the employer’s order to pay back wages for overtime is confirmed.
Although this decision does not lead to a single rule, it “introduces a dose of uncertainty. It implies that companies that employ mobile workers carry out an audit of the working conditions of these employees to determine if these travel times could be qualified”. as effective working time, and if necessary modify them, to avoid ending up, at least in the future, with requests for payment of overtime that could be substantial”, warns Marion Kahn, who anticipates “a new source of litigation in prospect ” .
Source: BFM TV
