Office relocation not mentioned in interview

StarCrossed

Hiya,

Just a quick query. My office is moving to a location about 60 miles away and means my daily commute will go from about 1 hour to 3.5 hours and will cost me about 3 times the amount to get to.

Sent an email to HR today outlining the extra week a month worktime I will spend travelling and how much more money it will cost me to travel and asked if I could potentially work from home (There are lots of home workers in our company).

They asked if I had been made aware of the relocation when I interviewed for the job. When I interviewed it wasn't mentioned that the office would be moving to me but it was mentioned that where I lived could "be an issue" which at the time I found confusing but in retrospect they must have been discussing this.

I'm just worried they may turn around and try and make me redundant or something because of the distance/cost etc. Is them not telling me about the move when I interviewed a big deal if they knew about it?

SarEl

There is no legal reason why they had to tell you - it might have been "manners", but nothing more. So in the end it is up to them. They may be willing to allow you to work from home but if not... well I guess you don't have 12 months employment yet, so even asking the question about mobility clauses isn't really relevant. It's really a matter of you either move offices or you would need to resign.

StarCrossed

Thanks for the reply. Apparently HR are under the impression everybody was told at interview (which we weren't). I've been employed for over 12 months and, should it come to it, I would make the trek rather than lose my job.

Just have to wait and see I guess....

robpw2

StarCrossed wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Apparently HR are under the impression everybody was told at interview (which we weren't). I've been employed for over 12 months and, should it come to it, I would make the trek rather than lose my job.

Just have to wait and see I guess....

what does your contract say in regards to mobility?

How long have you been employed exactly ?
it just when you mention interviews it suggested it was recent

StarCrossed

robpw2 wrote: »

what does your contract say in regards to mobility?

How long have you been employed exactly ?
it just when you mention interviews it suggested it was recent

Heya,

It the general "we can ask you to work anywhere within the UK within reasonable distance".

Employed for just over 12 months.

Apparently the move has been on the cards for a couple of years but is only just happening now.

robpw2

There is no fixed distance which is 'reasonable' - it depends on your particular circumstances. If the new location is just a few miles away and you can drive or easily take public transport, it will probably be unreasonable to turn down the offer. If, however, it involves a difficult journey, even if it's only a few miles away, or affects personal matters like your family situation or children's education, it may be reasonable to say no.

Mark_h_4

I would say under the misrepresentation of information act you'd be within your rights to take some form of action. The statement they made wasnt false but you did rely on the information you were given. If you werent given all the information at the time and it wasnt written in your contract then you should have grounds.

"Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong. It means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. This also means that a misrepresentation can create civil liability if it results in a pecuniary loss.

For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation.
A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.


Misrepresentation is one of several vitiating factors which can affect the validity of a contract. A misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement with the intention of inducing another party to contract. For an action to be successful, some criteria must be met in order to prove a misrepresentation. These include:

· A false statement of fact has been made
· The statement was directed at the party
· The statement had acted to induce the party to contract.

Its worth reading up on.

robpw2

Mark_h wrote: »

I would say under the misrepresentation of information act you'd be within your rights to take some form of action. The statement they made wasnt false but you did rely on the information you were given. If you werent given all the information at the time and it wasnt written in your contract then you should have grounds.

"Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong. It means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. This also means that a misrepresentation can create civil liability if it results in a pecuniary loss.

For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation.
A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.


Misrepresentation is one of several vitiating factors which can affect the validity of a contract. A misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement with the intention of inducing another party to contract. For an action to be successful, some criteria must be met in order to prove a misrepresentation. These include:

· A false statement of fact has been made
· The statement was directed at the party
· The statement had acted to induce the party to contract.

Its worth reading up on.

sorry but this employment law not tort.
and In employment law if it says you may be required to work elsewhere in your contract then thats the case and the only reason you could claim unfair dismissial is if they did not give reasonable notice/ it was so difficult for you to get to the new place of work

Mark_h_4

robpw2 wrote: »

sorry but this employment law not tort.
and In employment law if it says you may be required to work elsewhere in your contract then thats the case and the only reason you could claim unfair dismissial is if they did not give reasonable notice/ it was so difficult for you to get to the new place of work

The statement he was given had no mention of the office moving. They said it may be a problem but they didnt say how much of a problem it would be.

This information was not communicated to him or miss communicated to him and he had to rely on what he was told. Unless its written in his contract that he may have to travel that distance I dont see how they can force him to do it or he should be able to recover the cost. If anything the statement would be negligent?

SarEl

Mark_h wrote: »

Its worth reading up on.

Not really. It doesn't apply to the circumstances and in particular it cannot be applied to a future event. So if the interviewers over a year ago had or had not mentioned the move, the Act wouldn't apply because they cannot be held responsible for accuracy of the information which is dependant on something that may or may not happen in the future.

SarEl

Mark_h wrote: »

This information was not communicated to him or miss communicated to him and he had to rely on what he was told. Unless its written in his contract that he may have to travel that distance I dont see how they can force him to do it or he should be able to recover the cost. If anything the statement would be negligent?

Want to bet? On any aspect of what you have said?