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

getmore4less

How fare a move is applies on an individual basis but usualy there is a general rule of thumb from old to new that can be used to cut down the number of individual cases that need looking at.

So on an individual basis it is the difference(increase) between the mileages that would detemine how fare it is, or in the case of someone on public transport how different the journeys were.


AS I see it the first thing that would have to be done would be to challenge the asumption that this move is fare.

Probably by stating that you think the current position at the workplace is potential redundancy situation due to the closure and that the alternative offered is not a suitable alternative due to location and the lack of any mobility clauses that cover a move of this distance.

or something along those lines, you make your case, company makes theirs and if not happy after company grievence procedures get a ET to decide.

liney

getmore4less wrote: »

.


AS I see it the first thing that would have to be done would be to challenge the asumption that this move is fare.

Probably by stating that you think the current position at the workplace is potential redundancy situation due to the closure and that the alternative offered is not a suitable alternative due to location and the lack of any mobility clauses that cover a move of this distance.

or something along those lines, you make your case, company makes theirs and if not happy after company grievence procedures get a ET to decide.

That was my initial assumption. Basically travelling 500 miles a week instead of 250miles will mean she will struggle, on her wages, to put enough petrol in the car!

Would an ET consider this kind of thing if she gave a breakdown of expenditure to prove she simple can't afford to accept the move?

MrsManda

Is she being offered a relocation package such as travel expenses for the extra travelling distance?

SarEl

liney wrote: »

That was my initial assumption. Basically travelling 500 miles a week instead of 250miles will mean she will struggle, on her wages, to put enough petrol in the car!

Would an ET consider this kind of thing if she gave a breakdown of expenditure to prove she simple can't afford to accept the move?

It could be one of the things that is taken into consideration. But the first thing she has to do is put her entire case to the employer. It isn't as easy as them saying she isn't redundant (she is - her job has gone, but they appear to be claiming this is a suitable alternative and they have no need to make people redundant). Not is it as easy as her saying that she can't travel the distance. But it is still the home to work distance that is the relvant one for consideration, not the difference. Fair enough, a tribunal may consdier that refusing to go 60 miles from home if you already go 50 may not be consdiered a reasonable refusal - although it could be if the 50 miles was straight up a motorway (and took 50 minutes) and the 60 was through a crowded urban area and took 2 hours. That is why a keep repeating, at the risk of becoming annoying - it depends on exactly what the individual circumstances are.

scheming_gypsy

SarEl wrote: »

although it could be if the 50 miles was straight up a motorway (and took 50 minutes) and the 60 was through a crowded urban area and took 2 hours. That is why a keep repeating, at the risk of becoming annoying - it depends on exactly what the individual circumstances are.

liney wrote: »

That was my initial assumption. Basically travelling 500 miles a week instead of 250miles will mean she will struggle, on her wages, to put enough petrol in the car!

and if it was an easier 50 miles she'd get better fuel efficiency which would counter the petrol in the car, argument.