Job Relocation - when is it a redundancy issue?

renton75

Thanks. Getting this right is vital as it means I leave now or wait eight months for a good pay off. What makes an office move unreasonable enough to claim redundancy? To be clear I will definitely not move. It would mean not seeing my young family

marybelle01

renton75 wrote: »

What makes an office move unreasonable enough to claim redundancy?

With a relocation clause that specific and unless you are the primary carer for the children - probably nothing makes it unreasonable. That is the point of relocation clauses. If you are the primary carer - possibly you may be able to claim its unreasonable, but it would only be a tribunal who could say that.

Southend1

See https://www.gov.uk/employer-relocation-your-rights

marybelle01

Southend1 wrote: »

See https://www.gov.uk/employer-relocation-your-rights

Interesting link that, especially the bit that says "Employees without a mobility clause in their contract can choose whether or not to move." Since that is not true, I wonder whether they can be sued for telling people something that they incorrectly rely on. People can be forced to relocate even without a mobility clause.

Southend1

marybelle01 wrote: »

Interesting link that, especially the bit that says "Employees without a mobility clause in their contract can choose whether or not to move." Since that is not true, I wonder whether they can be sued for telling people something that they incorrectly rely on. People can be forced to relocate even without a mobility clause.

Now you mention it, I'm not sure it is correct either. Are you able to link to the correct info?

Southend1

marybelle01 wrote: »

Interesting link that, especially the bit that says "Employees without a mobility clause in their contract can choose whether or not to move." Since that is not true, I wonder whether they can be sued for telling people something that they incorrectly rely on. People can be forced to relocate even without a mobility clause.

Hang on a minute, I'm pretty sure it is correct. If you choose not to move and you have no mobility clause you would be entitled to redundancy.

marybelle01

Southend1 wrote: »

Hang on a minute, I'm pretty sure it is correct. If you choose not to move and you have no mobility clause you would be entitled to redundancy.

No it isn't correct. The starting point for tribunals is that 50 miles / 90 minutes is a reasonable relocation, and you then have to prove that it isn't. That's pretty common knowledge. Relocation of a workplace does not have to mean relocation of the home. Many employers actually move short distances, it isn't just big changes. I pretty much assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the OP knew that because they specifically mentioned it was more than 50 miles and two hours drive.

Southend1

marybelle01 wrote: »

No it isn't correct. The starting point for tribunals is that 50 miles / 90 minutes is a reasonable relocation, and you then have to prove that it isn't. That's pretty common knowledge. Relocation of a workplace does not have to mean relocation of the home. Many employers actually move short distances, it isn't just big changes. I pretty much assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the OP knew that because they specifically mentioned it was more than 50 miles and two hours drive.

Yes I believe you're right. It should mention the 50 miles

ETA - oops have given this post a sad face by mistake and can't undo!

marybelle01

Southend1 wrote: »

Now you mention it, I'm not sure it is correct either. Are you able to link to the correct info?

Relocations without mobility clauses are a grey area. As I said before, the tribunals start with the 50 mile / 90 minute test being reasonable unless you can prove otherwise. After that it's grey - see here http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/employment/redundancy_rights/500523.html where they say consult a lawyer before refusing.

The thing is, the only sure fire way of finding out is a tribunal, and that isn't a safe way to go. Course it isn't a problem if the employer says they'll pay redundancy anyway, but if they stick, a tribunal is the only way to test out who has the best argument.

marybelle01

Southend1 wrote: »

Yes I believe you're right. It should mention the 50 miles

ETA - oops have given this post a sad face by mistake and can't undo!

I think the problem is that nobody knows what the answer is - in the end it is all individual circumstances and whose argument is best at the tribunal. And there could be so many variables. Some on NMW who is a working mum and primary carer relocating 48 miles is utterly unreasonable; but a well paid office manager, say, might be reasonable.

It's a bit moot because the OP here has got a mobility clause, and that makes a big difference. Whilst I sympathise if they don't want to move, there is an element of the old "you signed up for this" - it's like not wanting to work your notice. People assume that contractual clauses they don't like don't matter because "it will never happen". It does.