Suitable alternatives

an9i77

This probably belongs more on the redundancy thread but this thread seems to have more action so I've put it here too.

One for all you retired lawyers out there! (or anyone else who thinks they know the answer)


My employer has relocated my job to another office and put me at risk of redundancy. It's currently a home/field based role but most of the work is done on the phone and email, with a few face to face meetings.

The new job will be completley phone and email based, but will essentially be the same job, same skill set etc. If anything it's a bit narrower than the old job, but certainly nothing new that I haven't done before

The job title is the same (they have put something in brackets after the job title to differentiate it from the old job) and salary, benefits etc the same.

My employer is trying to get out of redeploying me because they don't want to. They are insisting that the new job is not a suitable alternative due to the fact that it will be based from an office not home/field and therefore they don't have to redeploy me. But I am more than willing to work in an office, and have plenty of experience doing this previously.

So my question is - are they right to say that they have no obligation to move me to the new job based on the fact that it will be office based rather than field based? Or is it only if I say I don't want to work in an office that the job becomes unsuitable?

As I am 20 weeks pregnant I will claim unfair dismissal on the basis of pregnancy discrimination if they don't give me the new job, seeing as it is basically the old job minus the car.

What do you think my chances are?

Many thanks

Annisele

Have you been there for at least two years?

If not, all the rest of it doesn't matter much. It would be unlawful for them to dismiss you because you were pregnant, but to dismiss you while you were pregnant would be fine (so long as your employer isn't an utter idiot, and listens to his legal advisers).

If you have been there long enough to get employment protection - how many people does this affect? If there were 10 home based people and there's now going to be 5 office based people, if you ended up getting made redundant that might be fair. But if it's just you at home, and just one office based job, the employer will (IMO) have an uphill struggle to explain why the job isn't suitable for you.

But IANAL - one of those will be along shortly I'm sure :-)

an9i77

Hi - thanks

I havent' been there long so clearly would need to link the dismissal to my pregnancy. There are 8 home based people all at risk BUT I am the only one who has expressed an interest in one of the three office based roles, as the others don't want to move. So I think they would have a problem explaining not giving it me just because I would lose the car. Which seems to be their logic at the moment. Surely if I don't mind losing the car then that argument doesn't stand?

an9i77

bumpety bump - has anyone else got a view? thanks

bluenoseam

I think you're looking at linking two things which you would need to be very careful about, you'd need to PROVE they want rid of you because of pregnancy otherwise there's potential they'll shoot you down.

It could be they want rid of you, but good luck trying to link it to an actionable status unless they're really thick.