The Advocate General has given an opinion in the above case, which involves peripatetic workers, whose job involves travel from home to a series of appointments and back home again. The employer does not count the travel time from home to the first customer's location or from the last customer to home.

The AG's opinion is that the time that peripatetic workers (workers who are not assigned to a fixed or habitual place of work) spend travelling from home to the first customer designated by their employer and from the last customer designated by their employer to their homes constitutes ‘working time’, within the meaning of the Directive.

The AG contends that the definition of ‘working time’ for the purposes of point (1) of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 is based on three criteria, which, in the light of the case-law of the Court, it appears necessary to regard as cumulative:

(i) a spatial criterion (to be at the workplace);

(ii) an authority criterion (to be at the disposal of the employer); and

(iii) a professional criterion (to be carrying out his activity or duties).

The AG considers that the workers in this case meet the above criteria - travelling for those workers is an integral part of being a peripatetic worker and therefore inherent in the performance of their activity.

The AG also pointed out that the Court has held that Directive 2003/88 does not provide for any intermediate category between ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’ - the two are mutually exclusive and a worker is either working or resting in relation to duties - s/he cannot be doing both. In this case, travel was such an integral part of the job that it counted as working time. The case will proceed to a full hearing of the CJEU, which is expected to give its decision later this year. http://bit.ly/1JZu8CT