4 ms·

The article's headline is not in line with the ruling of course, but it's not even what most people in this thread are assuming. The ECJ's rulings are to be int

by roel_v 11y ago

The article's headline is not in line with the ruling of course, but it's not even what most people in this thread are assuming. The ECJ's rulings are to be interpreted very narrowly. In this specific circumstance, the company closed an office after which people had longer commutes. So this ruling in no shape or form means that people who took a job with a certain commute now all of a sudden will be paid for that commute! It's only the people where, through the choice of the employer, the commute has become longer, who can use this as a precedent. Precedent case facts matter a lot!

DanBC 11y ago
Doesn't this apply to eg care workers who visit clients in the client's home where the care worker's employer doesn't have a central office? The closing of the office is an unimportant detail of this particular case. I haven't seen anything else that interprets this case as narrowly as you do.
- anu_gupta 11y ago
  From the linked article: "The court ruling said: "The fact that the workers begin and finish the journeys at their homes stems directly from the decision of their employer to abolish the regional offices and not from the desire of the workers themselves." So, the closure of the office seems to be highly relevant.
- roel_v 11y ago
  "The closing of the office is an unimportant detail of this particular case." Says who? All precedent is to be interpreted narrowly in scope wrt to the facts, and that's not even taking into account that judge-made law as a concept is, in general, foreign to most EU jurisdictions (with the UK being the most notable exception). While there is not much dispute over the primacy of the ECJ over national law (although de jure this is not even a given!), there is no reason to assume that broad, general doctrines laid out by the ECJ all of a sudden constitute new law in the members of the Treaty (I mean, I'm not even talking about the ECJ-equivalent of a 'van Gend en Loos' ruling, I'm just talking about de factor interpretation by member state judiciaries and administrations). Furthermore I'm a bit perplexed at how easily you seem to dismiss the closing of the office, which is absolutely material to this case. It's quite different when a unilateral decision of a party affects the counter party, or if both parties knew what they got into from the start! Also, or maybe 'especially', in employment cases. Please tell what you base your assertion on, because it's in direct contradiction with all literature and practice. (and yes, I do have a law degree, although it's been a few years since I last studied any EU law, so I'm not claiming to be an expert here).
  - BlackFly 11y ago
    Where is your law degree from? The vast majority of EU coutries follow civil law (as opposed to common law) and courts are supposed to interpret law, not interpret precedents. Basically the only holdout to this is the UK, which leads to civil law sometimes being referred to as Continental law. That being said, the closing of the office was definitely the important fact in this case, but this doesn't narrow the scope of the law. The law says that companies cannot require work weeks of more than 48 hours. Excluding commutes can lead to preposterous results, so there are a variety of circumstances where commute time must be considered as part of the work. This case just happened to be about one such set of circumstances. Where to draw the line is determined by the individual judges.
    - roel_v 11y ago
      "The vast majority of EU coutries follow civil law (as opposed to common law) and courts are supposed to interpret law, not interpret precedents. Basically the only holdout to this is the UK, which leads to civil law sometimes being referred to as Continental law." Right, which is what I said.
- pluma 11y ago
  The situation is different because in this case the resulting (permanent) change in the employees' commute was something they couldn't have been aware of at the time they signed the employment contract. For care workers working on site at clients the varying commute is a condition of their employment at the time they sign the contract. Unless the client's home is in an extremely remote area, there's nothing wrong with the varying commutes.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  I believe you are right. I think the law doesn't regard all commutes, "fixed" workplaces are exempt: A) You go to your workplace to arrive at 8 am, then you travel 150km away to a site. Your commute to the "base" is not included, however, your work time is until you arrive at the base and leave B) Some employers would just tell you to be at the site at 8am - you'd have to leave 2 hours earlier and not be paid for it In my understanding, the law regards B, making the employer pay you for your time (I KNOW, THE HORROR /s)
chrismcb 11y ago
I think you are misunderstanding the ruling. And while the headline isn't 100% correct! it is more inline with what everyone is discussing than what you claim it is. At one time the employed commuted to a regional office. From there they would travel to the client site. Now the office is closed, the company no longer has an office in the area. Now the employees commute from their home to a client site. Some days it was longer than before, some days shorter. Before the closure, the company paid for commuting from the fixed office to the site. Now it doesn't. The court said it was wrong, and if you are expected to commute from your home to a non fixed point you deserve compensation. The fact that the office closed isn't really important. What is important is there is no fixed office that you commute to first. This is not the case that the new office is further than the old one.

by roel_v 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

Doesn't this apply to eg care workers who visit clients in the client's home where the care worker's employer doesn't have a central office? The closing of the office is an unimportant detail of this particular case. I haven't seen anything else that interprets this case as narrowly as you do.

anu_gupta 11y ago
From the linked article: "The court ruling said: "The fact that the workers begin and finish the journeys at their homes stems directly from the decision of their employer to abolish the regional offices and not from the desire of the workers themselves." So, the closure of the office seems to be highly relevant.
roel_v 11y ago
"The closing of the office is an unimportant detail of this particular case." Says who? All precedent is to be interpreted narrowly in scope wrt to the facts, and that's not even taking into account that judge-made law as a concept is, in general, foreign to most EU jurisdictions (with the UK being the most notable exception). While there is not much dispute over the primacy of the ECJ over national law (although de jure this is not even a given!), there is no reason to assume that broad, general doctrines laid out by the ECJ all of a sudden constitute new law in the members of the Treaty (I mean, I'm not even talking about the ECJ-equivalent of a 'van Gend en Loos' ruling, I'm just talking about de factor interpretation by member state judiciaries and administrations). Furthermore I'm a bit perplexed at how easily you seem to dismiss the closing of the office, which is absolutely material to this case. It's quite different when a unilateral decision of a party affects the counter party, or if both parties knew what they got into from the start! Also, or maybe 'especially', in employment cases. Please tell what you base your assertion on, because it's in direct contradiction with all literature and practice. (and yes, I do have a law degree, although it's been a few years since I last studied any EU law, so I'm not claiming to be an expert here).
- BlackFly 11y ago
  Where is your law degree from? The vast majority of EU coutries follow civil law (as opposed to common law) and courts are supposed to interpret law, not interpret precedents. Basically the only holdout to this is the UK, which leads to civil law sometimes being referred to as Continental law. That being said, the closing of the office was definitely the important fact in this case, but this doesn't narrow the scope of the law. The law says that companies cannot require work weeks of more than 48 hours. Excluding commutes can lead to preposterous results, so there are a variety of circumstances where commute time must be considered as part of the work. This case just happened to be about one such set of circumstances. Where to draw the line is determined by the individual judges.
  - roel_v 11y ago
    "The vast majority of EU coutries follow civil law (as opposed to common law) and courts are supposed to interpret law, not interpret precedents. Basically the only holdout to this is the UK, which leads to civil law sometimes being referred to as Continental law." Right, which is what I said.
pluma 11y ago
The situation is different because in this case the resulting (permanent) change in the employees' commute was something they couldn't have been aware of at the time they signed the employment contract. For care workers working on site at clients the varying commute is a condition of their employment at the time they sign the contract. Unless the client's home is in an extremely remote area, there's nothing wrong with the varying commutes.
emp_zealoth 11y ago
I believe you are right. I think the law doesn't regard all commutes, "fixed" workplaces are exempt: A) You go to your workplace to arrive at 8 am, then you travel 150km away to a site. Your commute to the "base" is not included, however, your work time is until you arrive at the base and leave B) Some employers would just tell you to be at the site at 8am - you'd have to leave 2 hours earlier and not be paid for it In my understanding, the law regards B, making the employer pay you for your time (I KNOW, THE HORROR /s)

chrismcb 11y ago

I think you are misunderstanding the ruling. And while the headline isn't 100% correct! it is more inline with what everyone is discussing than what you claim it is. At one time the employed commuted to a regional office. From there they would travel to the client site. Now the office is closed, the company no longer has an office in the area. Now the employees commute from their home to a client site. Some days it was longer than before, some days shorter. Before the closure, the company paid for commuting from the fixed office to the site. Now it doesn't. The court said it was wrong, and if you are expected to commute from your home to a non fixed point you deserve compensation. The fact that the office closed isn't really important. What is important is there is no fixed office that you commute to first. This is not the case that the new office is further than the old one.