I would not pose the question in a way that lets them put you in a position where you have to "strongly disagree". "I spent an hour at the station due to delays and will probably get a refund. Was that hour billed as company time so I have to pay it back, or was it my personal time and I get to keep the refund?". Let them be in the position to explain themselves if they want something else.

"Tricky question" - not that tricky if the travel and expenses policy states that any refunds must be returned to the company.

Laconic, in that case it’s extra tricky. If the train company compensates me for my inconvenience on a Saturday, that has nothing to do with them. If they refunded 25% because the original price was calculated wrong, that’s different.

This seems like a frame challenge, by saying it's about what you can get in trouble for. I wonder if people are voting for that (and not the the part about it being ethical to take what you feel you're owed, which seems blatantly wrong).

I think this answer is spot on. What if there was a complementary beverage given during the ride due to the delay? Would you be obliged to not drink the beverage and give it your employer? That seems silly. What if they offered a complementary beverage due to the delay OR a 25% compensation package? Would you be obligated to take one over the other?

@OwenReynolds Frame challenges are good. I couldn't possibly post an answer "what you plan to do is 100% ethical" if I know the 100% ethical action will get you fired.

@OwenReynolds I upvoted for both. The answer could be bit clearer that it assumes that travel time is not compensated by the company. But with that assumption, it's ethical, as the train company is compensating for wasted time (and as it's unpaid, it's OPs time, hence their compensation). The frame challenge is equally important, as it provides a good practical solution apart from the question on ethics.

With many employers, business travel is not considered overtime.

I think this answer is spot on. What if there was a complementary beverage given during the ride due to the delay? Would you be obliged to not drink the beverage and give it your employer? — depending on employer policy (or the law, for government employees) and how strictly/literally this policy/law is interpreted, employee may even be prohibited from accepting the complementary beverage.

Keep in mind, business travel being considered regarding overtime or not is a matter of local labor laws. As a member of the business you are responsible for following the law even if it is in your personal favor. Otherwise you can get an unsuspecting employer in trouble. This isn't the sort of thing you should guess at.

Let's swap the refund with, let's say, indemnification from an accident and bodily injure. Shoud you give that money back to the company? The refund was indemnification for OP's lost time. It has nothing to do with the company. Contrast the refund with a flat discount because of some promotion, with no harm or delay to OP. The whole overtime or not argument is moot.

The company is reimbursing for TRAVEL EXPENSES. Not hypothetical time spent traveling. A reduction in expenses means there are less expenses to be reimbursed. To pocket the refund is unethical and theft.

@PoloHoleSet The employee is getting paid their salary to travel. The company is not paying them extra for the extra time spent travelling due to delays. Independent to all that, the transport company wasted the OP's time. If you want to call it a crime, it would be fraud, not theft. But fraud requires intent.

@PoloHoleSet No, the train company is providing compensation for the delay, it is not reducing the cost of the ticket bought. Although the cost of the ticket is used to help determine the amount of compensation, what is paid out is still compensation for travel disruption.

'But this being "workplace", "ethical" isn't the question.' This is a sad commentary on the state of the world.

@AndrewLeach - the delay-compensation and any considerations are only offered BECAUSE TRAVEL WAS PAID FOR. A refund or credit given is a refund or credit against fares paid. The refund should go to the one who paid the expense. This is sophistry to try and justify stealing. It's no different than filching office supplies. Not the biggest of sins, but, seriously, a travel expense credit should go to the one who pays for the travel expenses. If the apology were handing cash to each and every person, regardless of funds paid or not then your claim would make sense.

Take these arguments to airlines: some offer ticket holders who volunteer to give up their seat $10k plus free rebooking and other perks. You still make your business appointments — do you owe that $10k to your company? No. It's your inconvenience and it doesn't affect your company as they already paid.

@AndrewLeach - It's providing compensation for the delay, in the form of a reduction in the fares they are keeping for the services. The services are deemed to not meet the standard, so they are reducing the fares charged, via a refund on fares paid. It's still a reduction in the fares and cost of services offered, so those paying for the fares and cost of services should see the corresponding reduction in what they are paying. This is not a straight compensation for time, it's a reduction in charges for services.

@coll - What you are talking about is not a reduction or refund on the price of a ticket for substandard service. Apples and oranges. Love the pretzel logic folks will try to apply to justify stealing from their employers. A voucher for future travel isn't a refund of funds paid, and does not represent a reduction in the cost of the services that were paid for.

@PoloHoleSet it's called delay repay compensation: "something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury, or suffering" is the business suffering or the ticket holder? These are monetary payments, not vouchers.

@poloholeset Incorrect. And as the recipient of dozens of compensatory awards, I should know. They are compensation for disruption experienced.

@AndrewLeach - That does not contradict what I said. You see a fare reduction because the disruption makes the service not up to standards. Again, in the form of a FARE REDUCTION. According to OP, it's based on a percentage of the fare paid. Of you paid $0.00, you would see zero compensation, so it's not a straight-up compensation payment for inconvenience, it's a reduction in fare. Since the employee is not the one who paid for the fare, a reduction in fare in the form of a refund goes to whomever is actually paying for it, ethically.

@coll - it's delay repay compensation that is a percentage of fare paid. Since the person traveling, when it's paid for by the company, did not actually pay any fare, they aren't entitled to a reduction in the fare paid.