Worker argues employer should pay him for travel time
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a dispute about whether a casual worker should be paid for time spent travelling between different work locations in their employer's vehicle during work hours.
When a worker spends time travelling between jobs during their workday using company transport, should this count as paid work time?
This case tackled this common workplace question, examining how modern awards treat travel time between work locations, and what it means for employers and workers who face similar situations.
The case involved a casual cleaner who started his workday at his employer's premises around 8:30 AM. He and his co-workers would travel in the company vehicle, along with cleaning equipment, to various client sites. He typically worked at 5-6 different locations daily before returning to the company premises at approximately 4:00 PM.
The daily work schedule wasn't known to the worker in advance. His team leader, who travelled in the same vehicle, received the schedule and informed workers where they would be cleaning that day. These schedules often changed during the day as needed.
From July 2024, when he started the job, the worker was only paid for the time he spent cleaning at each site. The arrangement changed in September 2024 when he started using his own transport. After this change, the company began paying him for all time from his first job to his last job each day.
The dispute centred on whether the worker should have been paid for travel time during the period he used the company vehicle. The relevant part of the Cleaning Services Award 2020, clause 17.12, stated:
"Clause 17.12 applies to an [employee] who is required by [the employer] to travel from one workplace to another... [The employer] must pay [the employee], for the time spent travelling between workplaces, at the rate applicable at the time as if they were working."
The employer presented two arguments against paying for travel time. First, they said each cleaning location counted as a separate 'shift', meaning the worker's employment started and ended at each site. Under this interpretation, the time between sites wouldn't count as work time.
Second, they argued that providing company transport meant they didn't need to pay for travel time. This argument tried to link the provision of transport with the obligation to pay for travel time.
The worker's case was straightforward. He pointed to the Award's clear wording that required payment for travel time between workplaces when required by the employer to travel between sites.
The FWC rejected both employer arguments. On the transport issue, they explained:
"[The employer's] argument that they do not have to pay for time spent travelling because they have provided transport to [the worker] is misconceived. It confuses the concepts of payment for time spent travelling and payment for the cost incurred in travelling between workplaces."
About the separate 'shifts' argument, the Commission found:
"There is no factual or legal basis on which it can be said that [the worker's] engagement began and ended at each of the multiple workplaces he typically attended on any one working day."
The Commission emphasised the practical reality of the work arrangement:
"The arrangement that was in place was that [the worker] was required by [the employer] to travel from one workplace to another each day. [The worker] was driven to and worked at such worksites as [the employer] directed from day to day. Those sites could and did change at any time."
The FWC ordered the employer to calculate and pay the worker for all time spent travelling between workplaces from when his employment started, highlighting the importance of understanding award provisions about travel time and transport arrangements.
