In September 2015 the EU Court of Justice made a decision about working hours which could have a significant impact on the working lives of many people in the UK. Namely that journeys made by workers without a fixed or habitual place of work, between their homes and first and last customer of the day do in fact constitute working time. Excluding such journeys from working time will now be considered a contradiction of the EU law designed to protect the health and safety of workers. The decision came about as a result of clarification sought in the case of Tyco Integrated Security and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corp. These companies install and maintain antitheft security systems and operate primarily in Spain. They employ technicians whose employment, following the closure of its provincial offices, is now administered out of the company’s central office in Madrid. As these technicians install and maintain systems in a geographical region they spend a lot of time out on the road and are provided with company vehicles and mobile phones for this purpose. The clarification of the law will therefore impact most significantly on employees who operate in this way. In the specific example of Tyco, the technicians found themselves travelling more than 100km between their homes and various places of work, and had to make journeys of up to three hours as a result. Since the closure of the regional offices, Tyco counted this travel time as a rest period rather than working time. In contrast, when the regional offices were still open, work was deemed to have started when the employees arrived at the offices and collected their vehicles and daily task list, and ended when they dropped the vehicle off at the end of the day. While some employers may be disappointed by this decision, it is not difficult to see the court’s logic. Workers are at the disposal of their employer for the duration of such journeys, as during this time, they are acting on the instruction of their employer. Work orders can be changed for example, with jobs cancelled or added. As a result, workers are not able to use this time to pursue their own interests. In the eyes of the court therefore, it cannot be leisure or rest time as the workers are working during the journeys. The ruling states that travelling is an integral part of being such a worker so this is of interest to employers and employees who do not have a fixed place of work and are required to travel as part of their role. Given that increasing numbers of businesses have sought to reduce overheads in recent years by closing premises in prime locations that are expensive to run and maintain, there are many employers who will now be required to take this into consideration. The view of the court is that individuals should not bear the burden of their employer’s choice, and it aims to protect their health and safety by guaranteeing minimum rest periods that do actually allow the time and space to rest. How the business world will react in practice remains to be seen.