On June 4th, a Supreme Court judgment concluded on whether time spent on travel to and from a workplace other than normal and out of ordinary working hours was to be regarded as “working hours” in accordance with Chapter 10 of the Working Environment Act. The judgment gives an indication of the importance of whether traveling time outside of regular working hours shall be regarded as working hours.

The case originated in Gaular in Sogn and Fjordane, where a police officer, among other things, had the duty of participating in the police district’s Special Emergency Unit. On assignment for the unit, the attendance was regularly elsewhere in the police district than at the ordinary country police station. The question in the case was whether the police’s travel time outside of normal working hours to varying places of attendance was to count as working hours.

According to the Working Environment Act, the time when “employee is at the disposal of the employer” should be regarded as working time. The traditional principle, as the Supreme Court points out, has been that traveling time outside normal working hours is not counted as working time. Travel time will, however, be regarded as working time if the employee has to be at the employer’s disposal during the travel.

Before the case before the Supreme Court, the EFTA Court had given an advisory opinion on the matter. On the basis of the EFTA Court’s opinion, the question in the case mainly focused on whether the police had to be considered as at the employer’s disposal during the travel. After assessing the specific circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court stated that this was the case. The Supreme Court emphasized, inter alia, that:

The Supreme Court emphasized, inter alia, that:

• The Employee travelled with the employer’s means of transport and brought some equipment from the employer
• The travel time was necessary in order to to carry out the work
• During the travel, the employee was obliged to follow the employer’s instructions
• The Employer could freely cancel, change or add assignments
• The Employee could not freely and without interruption be occupied with his own interests during the journey

After this, the Supreme Court concluded unanimously that the travel time should count as working hours. The judgement is concretely justified and, in our opinion, provides few general guidelines when it comes to the limit between travel time and working time. Nor is it set a minimum requirement for traveling time to be considered as working time.

It may therefore be considered when traveling time is outside normal working hours, with fewer or other elements of control than in this case, which would also be regarded as working hours.

In businesses where employees regularly do services outside of working hours, a customized schedule for calculating working hours and compensation for travel time will, in our experience, be a good and predictable solution for both parties. Such a scheme should take into account, inter alia, the length, frequency and choice of means of travel, and may be established in cooperation with the elected representatives.