1

I recently started a job in the UK that has frequent train journeys. My employer pays expenses when travelling to offices that aren't my home office. In the rail policy it states

any compensation given directly to staff is not for personal use as it is compensation for shortfalls in delivery of service paid for not by the employee

I was under the impression that the compensation would go to the employee because they are the ones who suffer the effects of a delayed train. I suspect the train companies are against such policies as they only allow compensation to be claimed by the individual taking the journey, but does my employer violate some agreement or contract made with the booking service by having such a policy?

closed as off-topic by ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn, Tor-Einar Jarnbjo, Giorgio, Henning Makholm, Traveller Oct 23 '18 at 14:36

  • This question does not appear to be about traveling within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    The employee endures the delay but the employer loses out on their time - presumably you get paid whether you’re sitting in an office or delayed on a train, for example? My own employer had a similar policy for journeys they paid for. – Traveller Oct 23 '18 at 13:17
  • 1
    Hi, welcome to travel.SE. If I read your question right, the rail policy is that of your company's, but not the railway operator's. As such, I'd say the policy varies from company to company, and there is not much we could really answer here. – B.Liu Oct 23 '18 at 13:20
  • 6
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it’s a question about law and policy not travel. – ThE iLlEgAl aLiEn Oct 23 '18 at 13:25
  • 1
    Imagine that your employer buys a chair for your office, the chair breaks and the payment for the chair is refunded. Following your argumentation, you should as an employee be entitled to the refund because you suffer the effect of the broken chair. Do you find that reasonable? – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Oct 23 '18 at 13:31
  • 2
    @ChrisH it's not entirely clear, but there's definitely an argument to be made that travel to an office other than the home office should in fact be on the clock. If it is, the employer has a much stronger case with respect to the delayed train compensation. – phoog Oct 23 '18 at 14:24