Only fictional travel expenses are not to be reimbursed.

A special feature of Temporary employment lies in the fact that the changing places of employment, at which the employee is active, by the labour provider one-sidedly determined werden. Es kann daher oftmals dazu kommen, dass der Arbeitnehmer weit von seinem Removed residence works and a long journey home has to take on in order to spend the weekend with his family. The Supreme Court recently (GZ 8 ObA 44/15a of 29.3.2016) had to deal with the collective agreement regulations for temporary employment, according to which the employee is entitled to a to enable paid return journeys at the weekend. The specific case was a carpenter with Residence and centre of food in Germany, which attaches to a Companie in Austria leave was. Distance between place of residence and place of employment is around 700km and was mostly covered by private car during the approximately six-month employment. It was notable that the carpenter not only wanted to claim costs for journeys actually made from the labour hire company, but also „fictional travel expenses (travel costs)“. The Court of First Instance and also that Court of Appeal interpreted the collective agreement for workers in the temporary employment sector to the effect that overnight stays for the weekly rest period cannot be ordered and the employee must be allowed to travel home on the last working day of the working week, and therefore the employee is also entitled to Fictitious travel expenses Claim have.

Fictitious travel expense reimbursement contradicts the intention of the collective agreement.

The Oh stated in its decision that particularly in employment relationships where, due to the considerable distance between the place of residence and the place of work, a Daily return impossible or is unreasonable, the Weekly homecoming as virtually typical to be judged and by Reimbursement of travel expenses includes. At very long distances Between place of residence and place of work, it can sometimes definitely occur that the collectively agreed upon Travel expenses the Universal Basic Income exceeds. Nevertheless, one Contractual restriction the entitlement to reimbursement of the costs of a weekly journey home is incompatible with the purpose of determining the collective agreement and therefore irrelevant. Ultimately, it is up to the employer, in their entrepreneurial decision-making, to decide whether employment in this manner is economically sensible. concrete case however, it is crucial whether the claim is based on Travel expenses can arise at all, if the Employees no return journey start, but the weekend voluntarily at the workplace or spends time in a location different from their place of residence. The deeper purpose of this collective agreement provision (reimbursement of travel expenses) is precisely to allow employees who live far away to to enable weekly commuting. Dem Oh following it is for this too Not required, the employee Reimbursement of travel expenses, that he did not arise at all are. The Reimbursement of fictional travel expenses could even the Intention The Regulation object, as it could be quite attractive for the employee to forgo a strenuous long journey home and instead use the Travel expenses how about a Income component being able to. Overall, therefore Travel expenses (Travel expenses) to the employee only to be replaced then, if the employee also actually has made use of the possibility of returning home.

Image: © jayrb - Fotolia