Being Forced to Relocate Unwillingly

YorkshireGuy

Hi,

My wife is in a difficult position at work. We don't know much about employment law so I hope some of the regulars can offer some advice.

My wife works in Local Government. She has been employed by her organisation for about 7 years. The organisation is being part-privatised and she is being asked to re-locate to a different office in a different city to retain her current role.

This is very inconvenient for her (and indirectly for me). We only have one car between us which works out ok at the moment but her journey will be considerably longer in future. Going by public transport is awkward as she will need to catch a bus and a train and the journey time will increase considerably.

I think the employer will pay her increased travel costs (for the first 2 years at least) but the fact remains that she does not want to spend so much time travelling. (It would be an extra 2 hours per day and would impact negatively on our quality of life.) Buying a second car is one solution but that is going to cost thousands to buy, insure, tax, fuel and maintain. We don't really want to go down this route.

Redundancy hasn't been mentioned as an option. Her employer seems to think it is quite reasonable to relocate her to this new office and she should be happy to accept the increased travelling time. If not, she will be forced to simply quit this employment but won't receive any payment as her position is not being made redundant.

She is not in a union so can't receive any advice from there.

Any thoughts about how to approach this?

kiddy_guy

Ultimately the job sounds like it's being TUPE'd.

Therefore there has to be a level of reasonableness about the distance - how far apart are the 2 jobs?

CFC

What does her contract say about place of work?

YorkshireGuy

Thanks for replies.

Her contract says she works in Town A but she could be expected to work in other locations on a "temporary" basis as required by the employer. But, she would be expected to work in Town B permanently.

The locations aren't that far apart. About 15 miles. The problem is that it's a real pain to get to Town B by public transport (1 hr 20 journey) whereas we live on a direct (15 minute) bus route to Town A.

We also share a car. Sometimes she drives but often I drop her off, use the car for my work during the day and collect her afterwards. This wouldn't be possible in Town B because my work never goes in that direction. The office in Town B doesn't have a car park so she'd have to pay whereas the office in Town A does.

Cavemanu

hi there I'd suggest she joins the union. She can either join in the workplace if there is a prescence. If there is not she can become a private member of whatever recognised union there is in that particular workplace- UNISON?.

CFC

Her contract is the key. It does depend rather on what 'temporary' basis means, but here is the initial opening to redundancy if that is what she wants. The employer is acknowledging by offering the subsidised travel that this is a variation to her contract (does she have that offer in writing by the way). I presume that this is a TUPE situation. She will have to speak initially to HR about the fact that the increased travel is unacceptable to her and the offer of subsidised travel does not help. She will then need to point to the lack of a mobility clause in her contract and the fact that it says 'temporary' at other locations.

They cannot just state 'oh you're quitting then'....

Reasonable distance does apply however the 'reasonableness' definition usually sits with the employee not the employer, very generally speaking.

Do think carefully about redundancy though if you cannot manage on one salary alone. She may not just walk into another job. It's a tough old world out there.

Take a look here:

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

marybelle01

CFC wrote: »

Reasonable distance does apply however the 'reasonableness' definition usually sits with the employee not the employer, very generally speaking.

But the baseline position applied by employment tribunals is 50 miles or 90 minutes travel time each way - without a relocation/mobility clause. So she is within those guidelines and is also getting the additional costs paid. And since these are the same guidelines adopted by the job centre, if she ended up unemployed she could be forced to seek work in the same area! In both cases she would have to prove that less than this is unreasonable, and that's risky because they may not agree.

Can you not cut the travel time by dropping her at the station, or some other sort of compromise? Perhaps if your employer requires you to have a car for work they might provide transport in the form of a pool car or company vehicle? What about car share schemes?

Spirit_2

The relocation may not be suitable alternative employment due to the distance and travel time and your wife may then be redundant. Her employer is mitigating the extra travel costs for a while to try to make the relocation more acceptable.

What she needs to weigh up is the cost benefits of taking the longer journey by public transport, the costs of buying and running another car, or the likeliehood of finding another job that provides a similar income without travelling further.

What are her redundancy terms? If they are only statutory then staying in employment may be a better opton until she can find a new job.

Are there other colleagues relocating? If there are could they car share?

Scorpio33

marybelle01 wrote: »

But the baseline position applied by employment tribunals is 50 miles or 90 minutes travel time each way - without a relocation/mobility clause. So she is within those guidelines and is also getting the additional costs paid. And since these are the same guidelines adopted by the job centre, if she ended up unemployed she could be forced to seek work in the same area! In both cases she would have to prove that less than this is unreasonable, and that's risky because they may not agree.

Can you not cut the travel time by dropping her at the station, or some other sort of compromise? Perhaps if your employer requires you to have a car for work they might provide transport in the form of a pool car or company vehicle? What about car share schemes?

Those guidelines may be correct, but what CFC has stated is true - it is generally up to the employee to decide on reasonableness and it is a very grey area.

For example, for a single mother needing to pick up her kids, and increase of 2 hours per day may not be reasonable. But say for a married female with no comittments who can drive, and extra 2 hours per day may be considered reasonable.

Here, she relys on public transport or getting lifts just to get to and from work, and so I would say it is not a reasonable commute. Generally the courts would side with the employee if the reasonableness fell into a grey area.

marybelle01

Scorpio33 wrote: »

Those guidelines may be correct, but what CFC has stated is true - it is generally up to the employee to decide on reasonableness and it is a very grey area.

For example, for a single mother needing to pick up her kids, and increase of 2 hours per day may not be reasonable. But say for a married female with no comittments who can drive, and extra 2 hours per day may be considered reasonable.

Here, she relys on public transport or getting lifts just to get to and from work, and so I would say it is not a reasonable commute. Generally the courts would side with the employee if the reasonableness fell into a grey area.

Quite - but that doesn't change the baseline position, and there is nothing to suggest that the OP's wife wishes to refuse for any other reason than because she doesn't want to travel this sort of distance. I don't agree that there is any evidence that the court would side with the employee because there is nothing to suggest that there is a good reason why their guidelines would not be possible for her. It's a risk. It's up to the OP's wife to decide if it is a risk she is willing to take.

Gloomendoom

Scorpio33 wrote: »

Those guidelines may be correct, but what CFC has stated is true - it is generally up to the employee to decide on reasonableness and it is a very grey area.

It is. I was asked to relocate 18 miles away. I asked for redundancy instead on the basis of increased travel time (I didn't own a car at the time) and got it.

Mt ex-wife was asked to locate 42 miles away and, again, was offered redundancy when she said that the journey was unreasonable.

In both instances the union were helpful, even in my case, despite the fact that I wasn't a member.