Individual vs company responsibility for work travel

[Class800]

Branching off from a thread in D&P as we agreed it was OT for that thread.

I work in a setting where the company has a travel agency that books all our travel and takes responsibility for choosing the itinerary and tickets. I may on occasion have some say in the itinerary, such as if there are multiple options, but that is very much discretionary. The company has the final say.

I am expected to follow the itinerary provided. I have some discretion in that if there is a cancellation, I do not need to get permission from the travel agency to take the next available train. I am advised to keep the departmental administrator aware of any changes to my itinerary for H&S purposes.

I was alarmed by the thread in D&P where a guard was seeking to punish an individual rather than their company when travelling on company business. What do we collectively consider are the responsibilities of individual vs responsibility of the employer when travelling on company business in a setting where the company buys the tickets and the individual has no or little say in the matter?

A failure to follow the itinerary as listed - you could argue that is an individual matter? My manager would probably say that is a company matter. It's debatable. As we have liability insurance at work. There can be a disciplinary investigation at work if needed, but we shouldn't be invidudally fined for any workplace misconduct.

Does NRCoT have any specific terms about travelling on company business as it is fundamentally a different matter.

If the ticket was not the correct ticket for the itinerary, firstly if it's accompanied by an itinerary it should be seen as valid, and secondary that is surely fully a company matter as the individual cannot choose the itinerary.

I was advised by work that in the event of any issues that travel or accommodation companies have while I am on business, they must call our travel agency and I am not authorised to speak directly to them on this matter. But we had an issue with a hotel over this once.

I can add more details when time, but just opening this for thoughts.

 

[bakerstreet]

I agree that this seems unfair but I think it’s similar……

(risk - I’m using an analogy which some may disagree is relevant, but it’s the best I can think of)

…..to when I used to sign out a work car. By driving the car, I am responsible for bald tyres, faulty brake lights etc.

Where this gets even more worrying in hindsight, I was probably also responsible for untaxed / no MOT even though this paperwork was not easily available to me.

We were always advised to check the vehicles for faults which would make the car illegal to drive.

The situation with train tickets I think is the same. Although there is no doubt that even to the initiated the validity of these can be confusing

 

[AlterEgo]

I was alarmed by the thread in D&P where a guard was seeking to punish an individual rather than their company when travelling on company business.

It was the individual that presented the ticket and it was their responsibility - which they admitted not fulfilling - to check they had the correct ticket before travelling.

A failure to follow the itinerary as listed - you could argue that is an individual matter? My manager would probably say that is a company matter. It's debatable.

Depends on what you're doing by not following the itinerary. If you just unilaterally decide to travel without a valid ticket, that's on you - and, if there are consequences to your employer, for example if that makes you late, then I expect that to be picked up in the disciplinary process.

If, as I did many times, took an Off Peak ticket from London to Glasgow with work, but didn't take the 1400 as listed but rather the 1200 because it fitted better with my meetings on the day, no issue whatsoever.

As we have liability insurance at work.

What does liability insurance have to do with this?

Does NRCoT have any specific terms about travelling on company business as it is fundamentally a different matter.

No, because it is not a fundamentally different matter. You must hold the correct ticket and that is entirely your responsibility whether you book the ticket or someone else does it for you.

If the ticket was not the correct ticket for the itinerary, firstly if it's accompanied by an itinerary it should be seen as valid

But it wasn't in the case you were describing. That ticket wasn't accompanied with an itinerary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2022 ==

…..to when I used to sign out a work car. By driving the car, I am responsible for bald tyres, faulty brake lights etc.

Absolutely. The onus is on the individual to check.

 

[Hadders]

I agree that this seems unfair but I think it’s similar……

(risk - I’m using an analogy which some may disagree is relevant, but it’s the best I can think of)

…..to when I used to sign out a work car. By driving the car, I am responsible for bald tyres, faulty brake lights etc.

Where this gets even more worrying in hindsight, I was probably also responsible for untaxed / no MOT even though this paperwork was not easily available to me.

We were always advised to check the vehicles for faults which would make the car illegal to drive.

The situation with train tickets I think is the same. Although there is no doubt that even to the initiated the validity of these can be confusing

I agree with this.

 

[Class800]

If the rail industry is going to say it is the individual's responsibility when a company books their travel, I think I need to contact my union to consider calling a ballot or Action Short of a Strike to stop all company travel until the issue is resolved. I am desperately trying to be polite despite this being very annoying.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is the employer's responsibility to arrange the ticket (if they do that) and to pay for it, and to deal with any changes to it, which must be made in advance of travel.

It is the employee's responsibility to check it is correct and travel in accordance with it, or even not travel if they cannot be resolved.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2022 ==

If the rail industry is going to say it is the individual's responsibility when a company books their travel, I think I need to contact my union to consider calling a ballot or Action Short of a Strike to stop all company travel until the issue is resolved. I am desperately trying to be polite despite this being very annoying.

It's your responsibility to check what you were issued with and to travel in accordance with it, and if necessary to contact the company to arrange a replacement.

Just the same as a company car - it is legally the driver's responsibility to ensure it is roadworthy, and it is the driver who will be prosecuted if it is found not to be.

It is not possible, legally, to absolve someone of criminal responsibility, though the company could, at its option, fund the costs of defence and pay any fine, but the actual conviction would remain with you. However I'd see it as more likely you ended up in trouble with them, too, not "bailed out".

 

[AlterEgo]

If the rail industry is going to say it is the individual's responsibility when a company books their travel, I think I need to contact my union to consider calling a ballot or Action Short of a Strike to stop all company travel until the issue is resolved.

It's the law, not just "the rail industry". Good luck with striking against your employer who have no way to change this whatsoever.

 

[Class800]

I will take union advice, but this may be confidential. I will need to get things clearer before I can travel for work

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's the law, not just "the rail industry". Good luck with striking against your employer who have no way to change this whatsoever.

Dismissal would be likely outcome of such a strike, as there is no valid grievance against the employer, because there is nothing they can do in law to remove criminal responsibility from the employee.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2022 ==

I will take union advice, but this may be confidential. I will need to get things clearer before I can travel for work

Or, you could do what every business traveller does, understand that humans make mistakes, and check your ticket before you travel.

 

[Class800]

This is a really serious issue in my opinion and thank you to people who have drawn my attention to it. So, the Law is making individuals responsible for actions performed under employment and not the employer? This is frightening. I will take advice, and maybe I need to stop travelling for work until the issue can be addressed, but it seems a long-term issue if it needs the law to be looked into as well

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a really serious issue in my opinion and thank you to people who have drawn my attention to it. So, the Law is making individuals responsible for actions performed under employment and not the employer?

Yes. Pretty much without exception, the employee is responsible for ensuring they do not break the law in the course of their employment, even if they are wrongly instructed to do so.

This is frightening. I will take advice, and maybe I need to stop travelling for work until the issue can be addressed, but it seems a long-term issue if it needs the law to be looked into as well

Perhaps you need to give up work if you're not capable of making basic, simple checks to ensure you don't break the law in the course of your employment.

 

[Class800]

Perhaps you need to give up work if you're not capable of making basic, simple checks to ensure you don't break the law in the course of your employment.

This is a gratuitous personal insult - we are trying to discuss a serious matter here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a gratuitous personal insult - we are trying to discuss a serious matter here.

I was being quite serious. You are responsible for ensuring your actions do not break the law while you are working. Your employer may also carry liability if they ordered you to do something illegal, for instance a Health and Safety offence, but you would be prosecuted as well. Both committing an offence and incitement to commit one are prosecutable, and both would generally be prosecuted.

Your premise is quite simply completely, 100% incorrect.

 

[skyhigh]

So, the Law is making individuals responsible for actions performed under employment and not the employer?

This is not remotely unusual? In my old job I used to deliver parcels. Say I was given 5 minutes to travel from address A to address B, but the fastest possible route takes 10 minutes. I could do the journey in 5 by speeding and going the wrong way down a one-way street, but if I got stopped by the police using the excuse 'well I'm currently at work and was told to take 5 minutes to get there' would do nothing at all for getting you off charges of dangerous driving.

 

[Hadders]

I really don’t see what the issue is here.

Company books a travel ticket, employee travels in accordance with that ticket. No problem.

If the employee decides to unilaterally do something different to the itinerary they are given then that is the employees responsibility.

A more pressing issue would be a group of friends travelling together, one buys the tickets for everyone and dishes then out before the journey starts. Ticket aren’t valid - legally it’s the individual’s responsibility not the friend who booked them.

 

[LucyP]

Class 800 - I think that you are confusing a few, different, legal concepts. I don't think you need to get into the relationship between the travel agency and your employer. It seems clear to me that you are travelling as part of your employment, and therefore you are subject to your employer's rules and regulations and to employment law.

If there is a problem with your ticket, then of course the guard is going to take issue with you. You are the traveller. In the same way that if there is a problem with my ticket that my partner booked with me, or a travel agent booked for me, the guard is hardly going to take it up with my partner or the agency.

The question is whether you have a claim against your employer and/or whether you have a right of indemnity from them.

If you are expected at a 10am meeting, and your employer books a peak-time train for you, but the ticket is some super-advance ticket, which prohibits peak travel for example, then it is unlikely that you would be expected to know the terms and conditions of it, so that when the guard refuses it sells you a new, correct ticket, then you are entitled to reclaim that cost from your employer.

If you choose to move onto a peak-time train, when there is no need to do so, and you have to pay for a new ticket as a result, then you will not be able to reclaim the cost.

If you are driving a vehicle in the course of your employment, and the brakes fail without any warning, because your employer had failed to maintain them properly, and you run over and kill someone as a result, then you are unlikely to be held responsible for that person's death, but your employer is likely to be charged instead.

If however you are driving a vehicle in the course of your employment and you decide to run me over, because I have been having an affair with your wife, then it is very likely that you will be charged and that your employer will have no liability at all for my death.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2022 ==

I really don’t see what the issue is here.

Company books a travel ticket, employee travels in accordance with that ticket. No problem.

If the employee decides to unilaterally do something different to the itinerary they are given then that is the employees responsibility.

A more pressing issue would be a group of friends travelling together, one buys the tickets for everyone and dishes then out before the journey starts. Ticket aren’t valid - legally it’s the individual’s responsibility not the friend who booked them.

But each individual may then have a claim in negligence against the friend who booked them.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you are driving a vehicle in the course of your employment, and the brakes fail without any warning, because your employer had failed to maintain them properly, and you run over and kill someone as a result, then you are unlikely to be held responsible for that person's death, but your employer is likely to be charged instead.

Civilly, perhaps, but the criminal law dealing with operating an unroadworthy vehicle, or one which is even uninsured, or untaxed, penalises the driver.

 

[LucyP]

This is not remotely unusual? In my old job I used to deliver parcels. Say I was given 5 minutes to travel from address A to address B, but the fastest possible route takes 10 minutes. I could do the journey in 5 by speeding and going the wrong way down a one-way street, but if I got stopped by the police using the excuse 'well I'm currently at work and was told to take 5 minutes to get there' would do nothing at all for getting you off charges of dangerous driving.

Yes but that only relates to illegal acts. If you are working on my house on behalf of your employer and you drop a piece of wood onto me and I am injured, you have the right to expect your employer to indemnify you against any personal injury claim that I may make.

 

[Hadders]

But each individual may then have a claim in negligence against the friend who booked them.

Yes, indeed. And I agree with what you have written in reply which you have explained far more clearly than me.

 

[LucyP]

Civilly, perhaps, but the criminal law dealing with operating an unroadworthy vehicle, or one which is even uninsured, or untaxed, penalises the driver.

No it would not, because it is fault based, and the driver would not be at fault, because they did not know and could not have known.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it would not, because it is fault based, and the driver would not be at fault, because they did not know and could not have known.

It is the driver's responsibility in law to ensure any vehicle they drive is roadworthy. It matters not a jot whose it is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2022 ==

Yes but that only relates to illegal acts. If you are working on my house on behalf of your employer and you drop a piece of wood onto me and I am injured, you have the right to expect your employer to indemnify you against any personal injury claim that I may make.

Yes, that would be covered by the third-party insurance policy carried by the employer.

But it's not comparable to the issue under discussion, which is the commission of a criminal offence. The employer could offer to pay any fine, but cannot do anything about any criminal record, bar paying the cost of a defence solicitor if they felt they wished to.

I think you'll find most employers would NOT cover these costs, because not taking a quick glance at your ticket before boarding the train to ensure it's correct is negligent. There are some employers who would consider the commission of a criminal offence while on work business gross negligence and thus terminate employment.

 

[miklcct]

What if the company tells you to arrive London at 10:00, you refuse travel because you are handed a super-off-peak ticket, and the company fires you? Is this unfair dismissal?

 

[AlterEgo]

No it would not, because it is fault based, and the driver would not be at fault, because they did not know and could not have known.

That's simply incorrect and you have made an assumption about how the law works rather than knowing what it is.

If I pick up a hire car and the police stop me because it has defects like a bald tire, I am the one penalised under the law. I can, in some circumstances, escape points and/or a disqualification under S.48 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 if I convince the judge/magistrate I had "no reasonable cause to suspect" the defect, but I must pay the relevant fine, which can be up to £2500, and I will be convicted.

 

[LucyP]

Read what I said again. There is a massive difference between my example and yours.

 

[Haywain]

No it would not, because it is fault based, and the driver would not be at fault, because they did not know and could not have known.

The court would consider whether the driver could reasonably have known about the fault. By testing the brakes, for example, and driving at an appropriate speed. It can’t simply be put on the company because it’s not the driver’s own car.

 

[AlterEgo]

Read what I said again. There is a massive difference between my example and yours.

To be fair I wasn’t the one who brought up the example of killing a human being and tried to compare it to failure to show a valid ticket. I’m the one trying to make the more reasonable comparison!

 

[LucyP]

The comparison is totally fair. I was demonstrating where vicarious liability applied and where it did not. You then told me that I did not know the law, and then you gave an example to try to prove that I did not, but was on a totally different point.

Had you hired your car and had the brakes had failed without warning 100 yards from the car hire place, and you had killed someone, then that would not be your fault and you would not be prosecuted for that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The comparison is totally fair. I was demonstrating where vicarious liability applied and where it did not. You then told me that I did not know the law, and then you gave an example to try to prove that I did not, but was on a totally different point.

Had you hired your car and had the brakes had failed without warning 100 yards from the car hire place, and you had killed someone, then that would not be your fault and you would not be prosecuted for that.

No, but if the tyres were bald you would, as this is easily checked. So is the time of train printed on a ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

The comparison is totally fair. I was demonstrating where vicarious liability applied and where it did not. You then told me that I did not know the law, and then you gave an example to try to prove that I did not, but was on a totally different point.

Yes, it was on a different point because this thread is about a strict liability offence of failing to show a valid ticket, hence the correct comparison is to another strict liability offence, not a crime which requires knowledge of your vehicle being unfit to be a factor and is therefore a tort.

You said, in response to my point that

'the criminal law dealing with operating an unroadworthy vehicle, or one which is even uninsured, or untaxed, penalises the driver.'

No it would not, because it is fault based, and the driver would not be at fault, because they did not know and could not have known.

To which I repeat again, you are wrong, driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition is a strict liability offence, even when:
- the defect was invisible to the driver when they took control of the car and
- even if the car is not theirs but they are driving it for work.

In this case, the driver will be penalised. The same also applies if you drive your employer's car under instructions but it turns out not to be insured by your employer. You, the driver, are penalised, because your intent and the circumstances are irrelevant.

These examples are relevant to our discussion, where the passenger has the wrong ticket but:
- didn't, and perhaps could never have known before travel, and
- was travelling on a ticket they had no input in purchasing because it was bought by their employer.

In this case also, the passenger is the one held criminally liable.

What IS different is causing death by dangerous driving, which is the rather oblique comparison you tried to make and is a tort, because in the case of a sudden, surprise brake failure, it requires

knowing that the vehicle has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously loaded

It is a crime of not acting on knowledge - one of negligence and omission - a defence of "well how on earth could I have known?" is valid, and is not a strict liability offence and completely unrelated to the original point.

 

[LucyP]

Causing death by dangerous driving is a criminal matter. A tort is a civil matter. You're clearly not a lawyer.