Can an employer dictate where you live?

Undervalued

KiKi wrote: »

If there's no genuine job requirement, I don't see the need for it, I don't like it - and I actually think it leaves the organisation less able to compete for the best people.

I live in Brighton, and work in London. I have to walk to the station, take three trains, and then walk again the other end; it's a 1h 40m commute in the morning. It's my problem to get myself to work on time, and as long as I do my job well, it's not my company's business where I live. If they had made me work within a few miles I a) couldn't have afforded it and b) wouldn't have applied, as I like where I live, thank you! It's a pain in the neck sometimes, but that's my choice, and I have to suffer it when the trains are up the creek.

I work with 9 other people who commute from Brighton, and also people who commute from Manchester, Leicester and Bristol, so I'm certainly not the farthest away!

OK, that is your personal view on the matter which I can understand.

However there is no law preventing an employer taking a very different view and only employing people who live within a certain distance if they so choose.

Aryndeneth

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

They aren't asking staff to move, they are only recruiting within a certain radius... there's a difference.

I can see their point of view.the further away staff live, the more chance of disruptions such as weather, traffic etc

No, they ARE asking staff to move. They will recruit from anywhere in the country but the advert states that anyone appointed must relocate to live in the area as stated by the company. They even have a map that shows the zone around the company in which people must live. That's why I asked the question. Recruiting only from a certain areas I've seen before and can be common in Local Authority recruitment. Recruiting from anywhere but then stating where the successful candidate(s) must live after being appointed is new to me, especially in a business type role that has no emergency cover function. I was interested as to the reasons a company may require this.

Undervalued

Aryndeneth wrote: »

I was interested as to the reasons a company may require this.

There doesn't actually have to be a reason!

At least they are making their terms, however odd you may feel them to be, completely clear up front.

As I said in my first post the largest employer round here (c. 10000 staff) has just such a rule although they do occasionally make exceptions.

There is nothing to be lost by asking!

FBaby

Ultimately, it is the choice of the company. If they are prepared to lose out on the best candidates so they can recruit potentially weaker ones who could come quicker in the event of an emergency, so be it. Either it is a badly managed company who don't appreciate that good candidates is a priority over closeness, or it is a very popular company, that attracts many top candidates, so much that they can restrict location knowing they will still get a pool of top notch applicants. If the pay and conditions are amazing, with great opportunities etc... then it is not so unrealistic to expect that people would be prepared to move to work for such a fabulous company.

kelpie35

tell me where the job is and where they need to stay.

i know loads of people willing to relocate if there is a possibility of full time work.

Aryndeneth

Undervalued wrote: »

There doesn't actually have to be a reason!

At least they are making their terms, however odd you may feel them to be, completely clear up front.

As I said in my first post the largest employer round here (c. 10000 staff) has just such a rule although they do occasionally make exceptions.

There is nothing to be lost by asking!

I understand that there doesn't HAVE to be a reason but equally I'd be surprised if they asked for this on a whim. They must feel it's of benefit to them or their work or staff. As per my earlier posts I don't think it's odd, weird, wrong, discriminatory or anything else. I just think it's something I haven't personally encountered before so was looking to find out more.

"There is nothing to be lost by asking" I did ask, as I've detailed above. The response given (requirement is so emergency cover is nearby in case of IT/server issues) left me with a futher question (why does this apply to the business/finance roles you're advertising?) The company didn't answer (as is their right) and simply stated that this applies to all staff, in all roles with no flexibility at all. And I understand that most likely applying it across the board makes it easier to manage rather than dealing with different groups of staff/jobs to whom it may or may not apply and the subsequant disputes that may arise.

As I've stated, I have no issue or problem with this requirement but as it was new to me I thought I'd try to find out more about why a business (any business, not just this one) might find such a requirement useful. As someone who works with people who are researching and applying for roles it's useful for me to try and expand my own knowledge when I come across something I'm not familiar with. I'm not insisting there MUST be a reason, I was simply trying to find out if there might be one and if so what it might be. If there's nothing beyond the whim of the company doing as it pleases, that's fine too, at least I know there's probably not some crucial key business/sector reason I was ignorant of.

tizerbelle

Aryndeneth wrote: »

The response given (requirement is so emergency cover is nearby in case of IT/server issues) left me with a futher question (why does this apply to the business/finance roles you're advertising?)

Bizarrely it could simply be that applying it to all employees prevents allegations of discrimination by the groups of employees that it would apply to i.e if it were only the IT teams, they could potentially submit a claim that it is indirect discrimination because it affects IT workers only and (even to do this day) IT workers are more likely to be male than female.

burnoutbabe

does this also mean if you move house once working there you would be sacked? How would that be considered by a tribunal?

Undervalued

burnoutbabe wrote: »

does this also mean if you move house once working there you would be sacked? How would that be considered by a tribunal?

Perfectly lawful.

If it is a clear condition of your employment that you live within XX miles then the employer could certainly discipline and ultimately dismiss you for breaching it.