The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a dispute about whether a casual employee should be paid for time spent travelling between different work locations in their employer’s vehicle during work hours.

This case brought to light a common workplace question; when an employee spends time travelling between jobs during their workday using company transport, should this count as paid work time? When looking at how modern awards treat travel time between work locations, what does it mean for employers and employees in similar situations.

Background

The case involved a casual cleaner who started his workday at his employer’s premises around 8.30am. The employee and his colleagues 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 4:00pm.

The daily work schedule was not known to the employee in advance. His team leader, who travelled in the same vehicle, received the schedule and informed employees where they would be cleaning that day. These schedules often changed during the day as required.

From July 2024, when he started the job, the employee 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.

Travel time between work locations

The dispute centred on whether the employee 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, states that it “applies to an employee who is required by the employer to travel from one workplace to another” and that “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 would not count as work time. Second, they argued that providing company transport meant they did not need to pay for travel time. This argument tried to link the provision of transport with the obligation to pay for travel time.

The employee’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.

Findings

The FWC rejected both employer arguments. On the transport issue, they explained that the employer’s argument that they do not have to pay for time spent travelling because they have provided transport to the employee is misconceived, and confused 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 that there is no factual or legal basis on which it can be determined that the employee’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 employee was required by the employer to travel from one workplace to another each day. The employee 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 employee 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.

Find our articles helpful? Remember to follow us on Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn to keep up to date with our practical tips and information for business owners and managers