Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

798. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if her attention has been drawn to the fact that in 2015 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in case C-266/14 that in instances in which workers do not have a fixed place of work, the time they spend travelling between their home and their first and last customers each day counts as working time; if her attention has been further drawn to the fact that section 8 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 states that working time does not include time spent travelling to and from work and therefore this ECJ ruling will not apply to employees in the private sector; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that under the principle of direct effect it does apply to the public sector; and her plans to update current legislation to cater for the aforementioned ECJ ruling. [10068/17]

Mary Mitchell O'Connor (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am aware of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case 266/14 generally referred to as the 'Tyco case'. It is important to remember that case was referred in relation to interpretation of the EU Directive on Working Time (2003/88/EC).  In the Tyco case, the CJEU found that where workers do not have a fixed or habitual place of work, the time spent by those workers travelling each day between their homes and the premises of the first and last customers designated by their employer constitutes ‘working time’, within the meaning of the Directive. The workers in that case installed security alarms in provincial Spain.

The primary purpose of Working Time Directive is to make provision for the protection of the safety and health of workers and is given effect in Irish law by the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended).  There is no amendment of that Act required by me to enforce the Tyco decision. 

It should be noted that that the Working Time Directive does not apply to the remuneration of workers. Employers are free to determine the remuneration for time spent travelling between home and customers, a point made by the CJEU in the Tyco case.

What is referred to in Section 8 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 (as amended) is 'working hours'for the purpose of remuneration rather than working time for the purpose of health and safety which is what was considered in the Tyco case. Consequently, it does not follow that any amendment of national legislation dealing with remuneration is required by virtue of the Tyco case. Working hours has a very different statutory meaning in the context of national minimum wage legislation. It is important to remember that this is legislation that did not emanate from the EU.

Therefore, there is no necessity for me as Minister to amend legislation to determine the national minimum hourly statutory pay for employees  on the basis of the Tyco decision where both the facts and the law were very different to what is covered by the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 as amended.

While it is correct for the deputy to point out that the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 states that working hours does not include time spent travelling to and from work, it would appear to be open to an employee in the particular circumstances of the Tyco case (worker does not have a fixed or habitual place of work and must travel each day between their homes and the premises of the first and last customers designated by their employer) that they are at work during this time.