Should the 'designated driver' be paid in a shared arrangement among staff?
The Employment Relations Authority recently dealt with a case involving a worker who claimed that his employer owed him money for driving a company vehicle and for fuel expenses incurred during his employment.
The Authority conducted an investigation to determine whether the worker was entitled to additional compensation for his participation in a shared travel arrangement.
The decision explored the nature of the employer's provision of the company vehicle and the expectations placed upon the worker, taking into account the company's policies, employee agreements, and the complications of expense reimbursement.
The company vehicle provision
According to records, the employer became concerned about the increasing cost of petrol for its Auckland-based employees who had to travel to the company's manufacturing site in Kerepehi.
The staff traveled approximately 1.5 hours to and from their work on the site each day. The Human Resources Manager said that initially the Auckland employees “used their own personal vehicles for this purpose and made informal car-pooling arrangements between themselves to share the travel costs.”
The employer then decided to make a company vehicle available for their use. It also agreed to pay the insurance and maintenance costs, while the employees were responsible for fuel costs, which would be reimbursed upon the production of purchase receipts.
The employees themselves arranged the details of the shared travel, including who would drive the vehicle and where it would be parked overnight. The employer's only stipulation was that the driver must have a full NZ Driver's License.
Travel arrangement as ‘discretionary benefit’
The worker claimed that during his job interview, he was told he had to drive the company vehicle and was expected to be the designated driver.
However, the employer denied instructing the worker to travel in the vehicle or be its driver.
The worker's employment agreement made no reference to the provision of company-subsidized transport, and the employer maintained that the travel arrangement was a discretionary benefit that employees could choose to use if they wished.
The worker also claimed that he was owed compensation for paying for fuel prior to reimbursement.
The employer argued that this was a standard arrangement for employee expenses and that the worker had benefited from the goodwill gesture of the fuel reimbursement.
The Authority's determination
After considering the evidence, the Authority determined that the worker was not owed any money for participating in the travel arrangement or driving the company vehicle.
The Authority found that the employer had provided the vehicle as a genuine concern for its employees and that there was no compulsion for the worker to use it.
The Authority also determined that the worker was not owed any money for paying for fuel prior to reimbursement, as this was a usual arrangement for employee expenses, and the worker had benefited from the employer's goodwill gesture.
The Authority reserved costs and encouraged the parties to resolve any issues between themselves.
Ultimately, the Authority found that the worker was not entitled to additional compensation for his involvement in the shared travel arrangement or for fuel expenses incurred during his employment.
