Are you paying OT for travel to regional or field postings?

Don’t.  I’ve seen numerous companies paying overtime for employees who travel from field or regional locations. While it may be generous, OT for travel may encourage employees to push their travel period later and later even as they can maximize their time and travel without incurring OT expenses.

What’s the logic in paying OT for travel to field locations and coming back to head office? It’s like paying your employees going to office and going home daily?

Ok, ok, those may be two different situations but from an economic, value-adding perspective, why pay OT for time that does not really add real value?

Remember as a general rule, if the Labor Code  does not provide for an obligation, which means it does not oblige OT payments or exact time-input payments for hours dedicated to travel then you may either ignore or make your own fair rule. In the meantime that the law is not specific on travel allowance, you may formulate instead a table of allowances for travel outside of Metro Manila or outside of the employee’s base. The table may take into account distance or time involved in travel outside of base. The allowance may be lower than actual OT so that the enterprise may save just a little bit while not shortchanging the employee. The basis for the allowance may be average time or concentric distance to main office or base.

This is a legal definition of hours worked. The travel allowance will certainly be valid and logical based on this definition of work hours.

The number of hours actually spent by a worker at work including waiting time, time spent in the preparation of the workplace, repairs and maintenance, preparation and cleaning of tools, short rest periods, and overtime. Excluded are time paid for but not spent in work for the establishment such as sick-leave, paid vacation leave and the like, and travel time to and from place of work.

to continue…