Should Companies Pay Employees for Travel Time?
The debate over should companies pay employees for travel time is rarely a simple one. For many organizations, the cost of a business trip is calculated down to the dollar: airfare, hotel, meals. But what about the cost to the employee—not in money, but in time? A two-hour flight can easily consume six hours of a person’s day, often bleeding into evenings, weekends, and personal time. This is not just a payroll question; it’s a leadership question that reflects a company’s culture and its respect for the people who travel on its behalf.
💼 Want to Take the Stress Out of Business Travel?
👉 Get started with a dedicated corporate travel specialist today.
Imagine an employee at the airport on a Sunday afternoon. They are not there for a personal getaway. They are there because the company needs them in another city for a 9 a.m. meeting on Monday. That Sunday afternoon and evening, time that could be spent with family or recharging for the week ahead, is now dedicated to airport security, potential delays, and ground transportation. The company tracks the cost of the flight with precision. The cost of the employee’s time is much easier to overlook.
Before exploring the philosophy, it is important to acknowledge the legal framework. In Canada, rules regarding compensation for travel time vary significantly by province, employment contract, and whether an employee is salaried or paid hourly. For example, provincial employment standards acts in jurisdictions like Ontario and British Columbia have specific rules about what constitutes ‘hours worked’. This article is not legal advice, and companies should consult with legal counsel to ensure their policies are compliant with all applicable federal and provincial labour laws. The legal requirement is the floor, not the ceiling.
Beyond the minimum legal requirements, the more critical question is one of leadership and company culture. How a company handles travel time communicates how it values its employees. A policy built solely on compliance can feel transactional and dismissive of the personal sacrifices employees make. A thoughtful policy, however, acknowledges that time is a valuable, non-renewable resource for everyone. The most interesting question is not, ‘What is the minimum we are legally required to do?’ It is, ‘What does our travel policy communicate about how we value our employees’ time?’
The argument for compensation is straightforward: the employee is only travelling because the business requires it. They did not choose to spend their Sunday evening in an airport; that time is being directed by the company’s operational needs. From this perspective, many organizations decide that work-required travel should be formally acknowledged. This recognition can take many forms, including:
The underlying principle is that if the company controls where an employee needs to be, it should also recognize the personal time required to get them there.
On the other side of the debate, some roles inherently involve travel. For a senior executive or a national sales manager, frequent travel is a known, expected, and core function of their position. In these cases, companies may argue that the demands of travel are already reflected in the employee’s salary, title, and overall compensation package. A senior leader whose compensation accounts for extensive international travel is in a different position from an hourly employee unexpectedly asked to sacrifice a weekend. The question becomes more complicated when travel is not an interruption to the job; it is part of the job.
A significant weakness in many travel policies is treating all trips as equal based on the ticket price. The actual cost to the employee’s time and well-being can vary dramatically. Consider four employees attending the same Monday morning meeting:
The airfare might be identical for all four, but the personal cost is anything but. A policy that ignores this reality is overlooking a key component of the employee experience.
Time off in lieu (TOIL) is a common middle ground. Instead of direct financial compensation, the company offers paid time off—a half-day after a late return, for example—to acknowledge the extra hours. This can be an effective way to recognize an employee’s sacrifice without turning every hour in transit into a complex payroll calculation.
The greatest risk with TOIL is inconsistency. If it is managed informally, one manager might generously offer a morning off while another expects their employee to be at their desk at 9 a.m. without complaint. This creates inequity, where compensation for travel time depends on a manager’s discretion rather than a clear company standard. An informal policy can feel generous when it works but arbitrary when it doesn’t. This is where enterprise travel solutions that help formalize and standardize policies become crucial for fairness.
Some companies might argue that providing a premium cabin for a long-haul or after-hours flight is a form of compensation. Business class certainly improves the quality of the time spent travelling; it allows for better rest, more comfort, and the ability to work more effectively. However, it does not change the fundamental equation. A better seat can make travel time more comfortable. It doesn’t make it personal time. The seven hours are still spent in transit, away from home, on the company’s schedule.
The distinction between ‘travelling’ and ‘working’ becomes almost meaningless when an employee spends a flight answering emails, preparing a presentation, or joining a conference call via inflight Wi-Fi. If the employee is performing tasks for the benefit of the company, the argument that they are ‘working’ becomes much stronger. Any comprehensive travel-time policy must clearly address how hours spent actively working while in transit are treated, as this can have both legal and cultural implications.
An occasional Sunday flight may be a manageable inconvenience. Repeatedly sacrificing evenings, weekends, and family time for work can lead to burnout and resentment. The cost of the airfare is visible on a spreadsheet; the cumulative cost to an employee’s morale is not. This is where policy becomes culture. A company can have a perfectly compliant travel policy and still have a travel culture that employees quietly resent.
“We spend a lot of time talking about what business travel costs the company,” notes a senior advisor at Inspired Travel Group. “I think there’s an equally important conversation about what it costs the traveller in time. That doesn’t mean every organization needs the same policy, but it does mean the question deserves more thought than it sometimes gets.”
A clear, comprehensive, and accessible policy prevents confusion and ensures fairness. It should provide unambiguous answers to the most common questions before an employee ever books a flight. Your policy should define:
Employees shouldn’t have to discover the company’s philosophy on travel time while sitting at an airport on a Sunday afternoon. A clear policy, supported by tools like the Tripscape App for organization, ensures every traveller knows what to expect.
It depends. Labour laws in Canada are primarily provincial, and rules differ for salaried versus hourly employees. In many cases, travel that occurs outside normal work hours for salaried employees may not require extra pay, while hourly employees may be entitled to compensation. Companies must consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with the employment standards in their specific jurisdiction.
Time off in lieu (TOIL) is when a company gives an employee paid time off instead of overtime pay for extra hours worked, including travel. It can be an excellent way to acknowledge an employee's personal time sacrifice without direct financial cost. However, its effectiveness depends on a clear, consistently applied policy to ensure fairness across all departments and managers.
A robust travel policy should address how time spent during unexpected delays is treated. If an employee is stuck at an airport for several hours due to a cancelled flight, the company should clarify whether this time is considered compensable. A clear policy prevents confusion and demonstrates that the company supports its travellers even when things go wrong, which is a key part of duty of care.
A formal policy demonstrates that a company has thoughtfully considered the impact of travel on its employees. It communicates respect for their personal time and well-being. Leaving travel time unaddressed or to informal discretion can lead to feelings of inequity and resentment, negatively affecting morale and retention. A clear policy reinforces a culture of fairness and transparency.
There is no single answer that fits a travelling executive, an hourly technician, and an occasional conference-goer equally. Provincial regulations differ, as do the expectations tied to various roles. But the conversation itself is a valuable one. When a business trip requires an employee to sacrifice six hours on a Sunday, the most important question is not just about compliance. It’s about whether that time, and the person who gave it, is valued. Building a travel programme that reflects this understanding is central to creating a culture where employees feel respected, not just deployed.
A thoughtful corporate travel management programme should consider more than airfare and hotel spend. ITG helps companies build travel policies around the realities of how their people actually travel, ensuring clarity, fairness, and support.
💡 Need help planning business trips? Work with a corporate travel agency that gets it. Inspired Travel Group handles every detail with expert care. Get Started Today!
