One of the longest running issues affecting employment law relates to whether travelling to work time is working time. In the European case Federacion de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras v Tyco Integrated Security SL (C-266/14) it was found that it did constitute working time if it satisfied a number of criteria and the employee did not have ” a fixed or habitual place of attendance”. Then, in a Norwegian case (Torbjørn Selstad Thue v the Norwegian Government (E-19/16)) last year the EFTA court questioned whether the latter condition was appropriate and stated that any journey between home and his or her fixed or habitual place of work should be included. Now Pacific Bell has successfully contested a Californian class claim on Appeal from workers travelling to clients in a company vehicle. Their claim being that as the use of the company vehicle to travel from home to a clients was optional and voluntary it was not working time under Californian law. If employers revisit the European cases where this has been an issue, then one condition stands out. For the time to be counted as working time it must be “travel ordered by the employer”. This therefore would exclude commuting time as where an employee lives is normally their choice. Moreover, if an employer gives the employee only the option to use the vehicle and does not order them to use it then the status of the travelling time as working time is further undermined.