No mobility clause, but required to move to another place of work?

scheming_gypsy

Hammyman wrote: »

Indeed. Where I live, I can do a 30 mile commute in 40 minutes. Where my brother used to live, it took him nearly 2hrs to do a 30 mile commute.

when kids are in school my 4 mile commute can take the same time as it used to take me to do a 40 mile motorway commute.

liney

It's about 50 miles, but all A Roads.

She is being told to move site because the one she works at currently will close. Others will move to closer sites and contractors will be let go.

an9i77

I'd say if her current site is closing and she's being asked to move to one 50 miles away that could be a redundancy situation. How far away is the current site (in miles) as the difference between the current and the new site is what will be important, not how far it is from where she lives.

liney

an9i77 wrote: »

I'd say if her current site is closing and she's being asked to move to one 50 miles away that could be a redundancy situation. How far away is the current site (in miles) as the difference between the current and the new site is what will be important, not how far it is from where she lives.

It's double the distance. A to B is 25 miles, then from B to C is another 25 miles.

an9i77

So to clarify, she would be doing an extra 25 miles on top of what she already does (I'm not being stupid, but points A B and C may not lie in a straight line!)

SarEl

The point is not whether A B & C are in a straight line or not (she will not be going from home to her old workplace to her new workplace no matter what geopgraphical direction they are in!) - it is 50 miles and this is (just) within the broadly accepted travel to work distance accepted by tribunals. That leaves it still firmly in the murky grey area and the details - all of them - are what are relevant.

System

Surely the distance would be considered from her old place to the new place and not home to new place.

Mobility clauses tend to be based on the place of work, so I don't see this as any different

liney

SarEl wrote: »

The point is not whether A B & C are in a straight line or not (she will not be going from home to her old workplace to her new workplace no matter what geopgraphical direction they are in!) - it is 50 miles and this is (just) within the broadly accepted travel to work distance accepted by tribunals. That leaves it still firmly in the murky grey area and the details - all of them - are what are relevant.

I can't find any 'acceptable' distances for guidence. I hear the JC say 90 mins travel time is acceptable, but do not state a distance?

The travel time in real terms may actually be longer than 90 mins, because she did the dummy run at the weekend, not at the normal commute time when i'd guess it will be busier, but if it's the distance that's important then I suppose that's neither here nor there.

ACAS has said that it's not acceptable and she should reject the request and but I have suggested she go to the CAB with terms in hand, and not take their word for it.

It has occurred to me that her actual job does not require her to hold a driving license. What if she no longer had use of a car? She could take public transport to her current site, but not the new one.

SarEl

!!!!!! wrote: »

Surely the distance would be considered from her old place to the new place and not home to new place.

Mobility clauses tend to be based on the place of work, so I don't see this as any different

Definitely not. And if this were the case, mobility clause or not, she would be screwed - 25 miles (the distance from the old workplace to the new one) is definitely within the reasonable distance. Say someone works 70 miles from home already and chose to - which is far from unusual these days. And the employer decided to move them to a workplace another 45 miles beyond that. That would make their journey to work 145 miles (definitely unreasonable), but by your reckoning it wouldn't be because they were already working 70 miles from home. It is the home to work distance that applies because that is the journey that you make.

SarEl

liney wrote: »

I can't find any 'acceptable' distances for guidence. I hear the JC say 90 mins travel time is acceptable, but do not state a distance?

The travel time in real terms may actually be longer than 90 mins, because she did the dummy run at the weekend, not at the normal commute time when i'd guess it will be busier, but if it's the distance that's important then I suppose that's neither here nor there.

ACAS has said that it's not acceptable and she should reject the request and but I have suggested she go to the CAB with terms in hand, and not take their word for it.

It has occurred to me that her actually job does not require her to hold a driving license. What if she no longer had use of a car? She could take public transport to her current site, but not the new one.

There is no absolute ruling on either the actual distance or the actual time - that is why I say it is grey. Broadly it is around 50 miles or so, and 90 minutes. This is another of those "only a tribunal can detremine what is reasonable" and that is always a risky method of finding out. Anyone who tells you differently and claims to be absolutely certain, given what you have described, doesn't know what they are talking about. In each case a tribunal takes into account all the circumstances, not just one of them - so this can include whether someone has use of a car, whether they have childcare responsibilities etc. 10 miles may be totally unreasonable in one case and not in another! Even the "what is broadly accepted" has changed over time - so things like increased car ownership has changed this, as has the economic climate (harder to find a job nearer home so it isn't unreaosnable to expect people to travel). Even the JobCentre have changed their "rules" over time to reflect things like this.