Employee Rights Working Away From Home 2026

Employees working away from home is no longer an occasional operational issue. For many UK employers, it is a routine feature of business travel, site-based work, client-facing roles, project delivery and geographically dispersed operations. Despite this, the legal rules governing employee rights when working away from home remain widely misunderstood and inconsistently applied. Errors in this area frequently surface during HMRC National Minimum Wage audits, Working Time investigations, tribunal claims for unpaid wages or expenses, and disputes following sickness absence, disciplinary action or dismissal.

Working away from home engages multiple areas of UK employment law at once. Pay, working time, expenses, health and safety, equality law and contractual interpretation all interact. The governing statutory framework includes the Working Time Regulations 1998, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Legal risk rarely arises from a single isolated decision. Exposure typically builds through informal practices, assumptions about “normal commuting”, poorly drafted contracts, or a failure to treat travel and off-site work as regulated working activity rather than a logistical inconvenience.

This article is written for HR professionals and business owners who need to make defensible decisions about employee rights when staff are required to work away from home. It focuses on legal compliance, commercial risk and practical employer action. It does not address purely voluntary hybrid or remote working arrangements unless travel is required by the employer as part of the role.

What this article is about
This guide examines how UK employment law applies when employees work away from home, including how to classify working arrangements, when travel time must be treated as working time, what expenses employers are legally required to cover, how health and safety duties extend beyond the main workplace, and when employees may lawfully refuse to work away from home. Each section is framed around the questions employers actually face, setting out what the law requires, what decisions employers must make, and what happens if those decisions are wrong.

Section A: What counts as “working away from home” in UK employment law?

The starting point for compliance is correct classification. UK employment law does not contain a single statutory definition of “working away from home”. Instead, legal rights and obligations depend on how the arrangement is characterised across different legal regimes, particularly employment contract law, the Working Time Regulations 1998, National Minimum Wage legislation and health and safety law. Misclassification is the most common cause of downstream non-compliance.

Employers frequently assume that working away from home simply means business travel or occasional off-site work. In practice, the law distinguishes between materially different working patterns, each with different compliance consequences. These include employees with a fixed workplace who travel occasionally, employees temporarily assigned to another location, site-based workers whose place of work changes regularly, and genuinely mobile or peripatetic workers who have no fixed or habitual place of work.

It is critical to distinguish between contractual concepts and statutory tests. The “place of work” is primarily a contractual matter, determined by the employment contract and any mobility provisions. By contrast, “working time” is a statutory concept defined by the Working Time Regulations 1998. Contract wording does not determine whether time counts as working time. Tribunals consistently look beyond labels to the practical reality of how work is organised and performed.

An employee described as office-based may, in practice, be a mobile worker if the role requires regular travel to multiple sites. Equally, an employer cannot avoid working time or pay obligations by describing travel as “commuting” if the travel is integral to the performance of the role. Tax concepts such as “temporary workplace” may be relevant for expenses and payroll, but they are not determinative for working time purposes.

Correct classification matters because it underpins all subsequent compliance decisions. It affects whether travel time may count as working time, whether pay arrangements comply with minimum wage law, what expenses are reasonably recoverable, and how far the employer’s health and safety duties extend. It also shapes how disputes are assessed where employees later challenge pay, fatigue, dismissal or detriment linked to working away from home.

Section summary
“Working away from home” is not a single legal concept. Employers must identify the true nature of the working arrangement by reference to how work is actually carried out, not how it is described. Contractual place of work clauses do not determine statutory working time status. Getting this classification wrong undermines pay, working time, expense and safety decisions that follow, leaving employers exposed even where intentions are reasonable.

Section B: Do employees get paid for travel time when working away from home?

Travel time is the most frequent trigger for disputes when employees work away from home, and it is where employers most often underestimate legal exposure. The key issue is not whether travel feels like work, but whether it meets the statutory definition of “working time” under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and how it affects pay compliance, particularly National Minimum Wage risk.

Under the Working Time Regulations 1998, “working time” includes any period during which the worker is working, is at the employer’s disposal and is carrying out their activity or duties. This statutory test is decisive. Employers should be careful not to assume that travel is excluded merely because it happens outside normal hours or begins from home. Ordinary commuting between home and a fixed place of work is generally not working time. However, travel that is integral to the role, rather than incidental to getting to a normal workplace, may meet the statutory test.

This distinction matters most where employees are required to travel to temporary sites, client premises or multiple locations. For some roles, travel from home to the first assignment of the day and from the last assignment back home can constitute working time, particularly where the employee has no fixed or habitual workplace and the travel is required to deliver the employer’s service. However, it does not follow that all home-to-site travel is automatically working time. Employers must assess whether, during the travel, the employee is effectively at the employer’s disposal and performing duties inherent to the role.

Working time status then feeds directly into working time limits and rest entitlements. Excess travel can extend the working day and reduce daily or weekly rest, increasing fatigue risk and compliance exposure. Employers who do not monitor travel-related working time can find that otherwise “reasonable” working patterns breach rest rules in practice, particularly where travel is frequent or unpredictable.

Pay risk is a separate but related issue. Even where employers decide that travel time is not working time in a particular scenario, they must still consider whether travel-related costs and arrangements create National Minimum Wage exposure. HMRC National Minimum Wage audits commonly assess effective hourly pay over the relevant pay reference period. Where long travel demands are combined with fixed pay, day rates or salaried hours that do not reflect reality, employers can face back pay liability and financial penalties.

Overtime arrangements add another layer of risk. Where contractual overtime provisions apply, failure to pay for qualifying travel time in line with the contract or established custom and practice can amount to an unlawful deduction from wages. Employers relying on informal manager discretion or unwritten “understandings” often struggle to defend claims, because the dispute becomes evidential. Contemporary records of working time, travel and pay treatment are usually decisive.

Section summary
Travel time is not automatically unpaid commuting, and working time status is determined by the statutory test under the Working Time Regulations 1998, not by contractual labels. Employers must assess travel patterns role by role, monitor the impact on rest entitlements and ensure pay structures remain compliant, including National Minimum Wage risk where travel extends the working day or depresses effective hourly pay. Where contracts or custom require payment, failure to pay can lead to unlawful deduction claims. The most defensible approach is one that is evidence-led, consistent and auditable.

Section C: What expenses must employers cover when staff work away from home?

Expenses are frequently treated as a discretionary or goodwill issue, but when employees work away from home they become a recurring compliance risk. UK employment law does not impose a general, free-standing statutory obligation on employers to reimburse all work-related expenses. However, liability arises indirectly through the interaction of minimum wage law, contract law and, in some cases, implied terms. Employers who treat expenses as optional often discover that the legal consequences are not.

The most significant risk arises under National Minimum Wage legislation. Where employees are required to incur costs in order to perform their role, such as travel, accommodation or subsistence, those costs can reduce the worker’s effective hourly pay. If unreimbursed expenses push pay below the applicable National Minimum Wage for the relevant pay reference period, the employer will be in breach, regardless of how the expenses policy is framed. HMRC enforcement focuses on substance over labels and will not accept arguments that costs were “voluntary” if they were necessary for the work.

Contractual terms are the next critical layer. Many employment contracts and expense policies expressly provide for reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred when working away from home. Where such provisions exist, failure to reimburse in accordance with the policy can amount to an unlawful deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996. Even where contracts are silent, tribunals may imply terms where it would be unreasonable or unrealistic to expect employees to personally fund business costs over a sustained period.

Tax treatment adds further complexity. HMRC distinguishes between ordinary commuting and travel to a temporary workplace for tax purposes. While this distinction affects tax relief and payroll reporting, it does not determine working time status. Employers must also distinguish between expense reimbursement and pay. Misclassifying reimbursements, operating salary sacrifice arrangements incorrectly, or applying blanket per-diem rates without regard to actual cost can create payroll errors, tax exposure and employee disputes.

Accommodation and subsistence costs require particular care. There is no automatic legal requirement to pay for hotels or meals. However, requiring employees to work away from home without covering reasonable associated costs may undermine minimum wage compliance and damage trust and confidence. Rigid caps that do not reflect genuine costs can also generate equality and discrimination risk, particularly where they disproportionately affect employees with caring responsibilities, disabilities or other protected characteristics.

Section summary
There is no general statutory right to expense reimbursement, but employers cannot treat expenses as optional where they affect National Minimum Wage compliance or arise from contractual commitments. Employers must assess whether working-away costs depress effective pay, ensure expense policies are clear, proportionate and consistently applied, and align reimbursement practices with payroll and tax rules. HMRC and tribunals focus on economic reality, not policy wording.

Section D: What health, safety and welfare duties apply when employees work away from home?

An employer’s duty of care does not end at the boundary of the main workplace. When employees work away from home, whether at client premises, temporary sites or while travelling, the employer’s statutory health and safety obligations continue to apply. This is an area where employers often assume responsibility transfers to the host organisation or the individual employee. That assumption is legally unsafe.

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their employees while at work. This duty is not absolute, but it is proactive and risk-based. It extends to off-site working and includes risks arising from travel, lone working, fatigue, unfamiliar environments and overnight stays. Employers are expected to identify foreseeable risks and take proportionate steps to manage them.

Risk assessment is central to compliance. Generic assessments are rarely sufficient where employees regularly work away from home. Employers should consider the specific risks associated with travel duration, long working days, driving, accommodation standards, client-site conditions and the availability of support. Failure to assess fatigue and rest, particularly where long journeys are combined with full working days, is a recurring factor in enforcement action and civil liability claims.

Working time and health and safety duties intersect. Excessive travel can erode daily and weekly rest entitlements under the Working Time Regulations 1998, increasing the likelihood of accidents and illness. Employers who allow extended days to develop through unmanaged travel time may face liability if harm occurs, even where employees appear willing or do not raise concerns. Consent does not remove the employer’s duty.

Mental health and wellbeing risks also require consideration. Prolonged or repeated periods working away from home can contribute to stress, isolation and burnout. Employers are not insurers of employee wellbeing, but they must show that they have considered these risks and taken reasonable steps to mitigate foreseeable harm. Where employees work at client premises, duties may be shared, but responsibility cannot be delegated entirely to a third party.

Section summary
Employers retain health and safety responsibility when staff work away from home. The duty is risk-based and proportionate, but it extends to travel, fatigue and welfare issues beyond the main workplace. Assuming responsibility transfers elsewhere, or relying on employee consent, exposes employers to regulatory action, personal injury claims and insurance difficulties if something goes wrong.

Section E: Can employees refuse to work away from home?

Whether an employee can lawfully refuse to work away from home depends on contractual rights, statutory protections and the reasonableness of the employer’s request in the circumstances. This is an area where employers frequently overestimate the scope of managerial discretion, exposing themselves to unfair dismissal, discrimination and detriment claims.

The starting point is the employment contract. Some contracts include mobility clauses requiring employees to work at different locations. The presence of a mobility clause does not give an employer unfettered discretion. Tribunals interpret such clauses narrowly and will assess whether reliance on the clause is reasonable, taking into account the distance involved, the duration of the requirement, the notice given and the impact on the employee. A clause that is technically valid can still be exercised unlawfully if used disproportionately.

Where there is no express contractual right to require working away from home, imposing such a requirement may amount to a unilateral variation of contract. Requiring compliance without agreement, or treating refusal as misconduct, can give rise to breach of contract claims or constructive dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The legal risk increases where refusal is followed by disciplinary action, loss of pay or dismissal.

Statutory protections further limit employer discretion. Employees may have legitimate reasons for refusing to work away from home, including health and safety concerns, disability-related needs or caring responsibilities. Where refusal is linked to health and safety, employees may be protected from detriment or dismissal, including automatic unfair dismissal in certain circumstances. Employers who fail to investigate concerns or who treat refusal as insubordination without proper assessment are particularly exposed.

Discrimination risk must also be considered. Requirements to work away from home may place employees with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. Failure to consider reasonable adjustments, alternatives or flexibility can lead to discrimination claims, even where the underlying business need is genuine. The manner in which the employer responds is often more significant than the initial request.

Section summary
Employees do not have an absolute right to refuse working away from home, but employers do not have unlimited power to require it. Contract terms, statutory protections and reasonableness all apply. Employers who treat refusal as a simple disciplinary issue, without considering contractual scope, health and safety or discrimination risk, face significant exposure under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Section F: How should employers document and manage working-away arrangements?

When disputes arise about working away from home, outcomes are rarely determined by what employers intended. They are determined by what can be evidenced. Documentation, systems and consistency are therefore central to compliance, particularly where working patterns vary across roles, projects or locations.

Employment contracts should clearly state the employee’s place of work and, where relevant, the extent to which travel or working away from home is required. Mobility clauses should be drafted with care, avoiding overly broad wording that creates legal risk without adding operational value. Where working-away arrangements are regular, long-term or role-defining, employers should consider role-specific terms or side letters to reduce ambiguity and dispute.

Policies are the mechanism through which legal obligations are operationalised. Travel time, working time, expenses and health and safety policies should align with each other and reflect how work is actually performed. Policies that look compliant on paper but do not match operational reality are frequently exposed during tribunal proceedings and HMRC audits. Inconsistent application across teams or managers is a common evidential weakness.

Record-keeping is critical. In many working time and National Minimum Wage disputes, the burden of proof falls on the employer to demonstrate compliance. Employers should be able to produce contemporaneous records showing how qualifying travel time is identified, how working time and rest are monitored, and how expenses are claimed and reimbursed. Reliance on informal reporting, manager discretion or retrospective reconstruction significantly undermines defensibility.

Custom and practice also require attention. Informal arrangements around travel pay, expenses or flexibility can crystallise into implied contractual terms over time. Employers who attempt to withdraw or change these practices without consultation may inadvertently create breach of contract or unlawful deduction claims.

Finally, working-away arrangements should be reviewed periodically. Travel patterns, project structures and business needs evolve. Systems that were compliant at one stage may become non-compliant as demands increase or roles change. Employers who fail to reassess risk can find themselves exposed despite having compliant documentation in place historically.

Section summary
Defensible decisions depend on clear contracts, aligned policies and robust, contemporaneous records. In working-away disputes, evidential gaps usually determine liability. Employers who manage these arrangements informally often struggle to demonstrate compliance, even where their underlying approach is lawful.

FAQs

Is overnight travel counted as working time?
Overnight stays themselves are not automatically working time. Sleeping time is generally not treated as working time unless the employee is required to be awake and working. However, time spent travelling to and from the accommodation may count as working time where the statutory test is met, particularly if the travel is required by the employer and the employee is at the employer’s disposal. Employers must also consider the impact of overnight travel on daily and weekly rest entitlements.

Can employers refuse to pay for travel time if it takes place outside normal working hours?
Travel occurring outside normal hours can still count as working time. The timing of the travel is not decisive. What matters is whether the travel is integral to the role and whether the employee is carrying out duties or is at the employer’s disposal during that period. Scheduling travel early in the morning or late in the evening does not remove legal obligations.

Are employers legally required to pay for meals when employees work away from home?
There is no general statutory obligation to pay for meals. However, where unreimbursed subsistence costs reduce an employee’s effective hourly pay below the National Minimum Wage, the employer will be in breach. Contractual commitments and the reasonableness of expecting employees to self-fund work-related costs are also relevant.

Does working away from home affect holiday pay calculations?
Where travel-related pay forms part of an employee’s normal remuneration, it may need to be reflected in statutory holiday pay calculations. Employers who exclude regular and predictable travel-related pay risk unlawful deduction claims where holiday pay does not reflect normal earnings.

Can an employee be disciplined for refusing to work away from home?
Possibly, but only where the requirement is contractual and exercised reasonably. Employers must consider health and safety concerns, discrimination risk and statutory protections before taking disciplinary action. Treating refusal as misconduct without proper assessment can lead to unfair dismissal or discrimination claims.

Conclusion

Working away from home is not a marginal HR issue or a matter of informal management discretion. It is a legally sensitive area where pay, working time, expenses, health and safety and contractual rights intersect. Employers who rely on assumptions about commuting, goodwill or informal practices are particularly exposed to enforcement action, tribunal claims and reputational damage.

Compliance requires structured, evidence-led decision-making. Employers must correctly classify working arrangements, apply the statutory working time tests to travel, ensure expenses do not undermine National Minimum Wage compliance, manage health and safety risks beyond the main workplace and respond proportionately to employee concerns. Good intentions are not a defence where systems fail to evidence compliance.

Clear documentation, aligned policies and robust records are not administrative overheads. They are essential risk controls. Employers who treat working-away arrangements as a compliance issue rather than a logistical inconvenience are far better placed to withstand regulatory scrutiny, HMRC audits and litigation.

Glossary

Useful Links