Can an employer dictate how you commute?

FBaby

Have you actually asked at any time, on which basis they were making it an employment condition that you shouldn't drive to and from work? You say that having a licence is part of your job description, to that assumes that you are expected to drive as part of your duties, yet they make more of an issue of you driving outside of work then within work.

It makes no sense. I think you need to speak with your manager and get to the bottom of it because if you want proper legal advice, you need to be totally clear what their position is.

Taiko

I have asked HR, and the response I got was "OH tell us you can't drive for work purposes". The location of the office and my home isn't rural, but the on foot time to the nearest location to get public transport adds a large amount of time onto my commute. A normal drive takes about 10-15mins, depending on traffic.

As for driving for work, I've been employed several months, and only been required to make one journey by car to another location. I'm pretty much based in a static office.

Guest101

Taiko wrote: »

I have asked HR, and the response I got was "OH tell us you can't drive for work purposes". The location of the office and my home isn't rural, but the on foot time to the nearest location to get public transport adds a large amount of time onto my commute. A normal drive takes about 10-15mins, depending on traffic.

As for driving for work, I've been employed several months, and only been required to make one journey by car to another location. I'm pretty much based in a static office.

- Well you aren't driving for work purposes. You're driving for driving purposes, to enable you to travel. Once you arrive, you are on work business, and when you finish you are driving again for travel purposes.

Undervalued

Taiko wrote: »

I have asked HR, and the response I got was "OH tell us you can't drive for work purposes". The location of the office and my home isn't rural, but the on foot time to the nearest location to get public transport adds a large amount of time onto my commute. A normal drive takes about 10-15mins, depending on traffic.

As for driving for work, I've been employed several months, and only been required to make one journey by car to another location. I'm pretty much based in a static office.

If you have only worked for this firm for "several months" then I'm afraid 99% of this thread is academic as you have very little employment protection during the first two years.

Apart from certain types of UNLAWFUL discrimination etc they could simply dismiss you without even giving a reason.

Hopefully I am misreading your post and you have been there a good deal longer?

Taiko

Not reading that wrong at all. I think I may have mentioned it in an earlier post, all that time ago. I'm aware of the lack of protection, and at the moment the syncope hasn't been classed as a disability and therefore offers no protection. I left a solid job to take up this post, which I saw as a new challenge, having done a similar role in another area.

The only other thing, which was briefly touched on in a recent discussion, is that a about 2 months ago, I disclosed something that, from my experience of the industry, didn't seem to be correct. I had evidence to back my claim up as well, and presented the details to my line manager.

I've no evidence that their behaviour is possibly linked to this, but thinking back the OH referral did come shortly after I raised the concern. It wasn't something I'd given thought to at the time, but there were legislative requirements that I couldn't find proof had been met.

I can't rely on this as a cause for their awkwardness. But since this chat where it was brought up, it has played on my mind a little. Before then, I hadn't even given it thought.

Undervalued

As you say, unlikely to be a disability for employment law purposes. Even if it was that would only require them to offer "reasonable adjustments" which don't go as far as most people fondly believe.

If you have grounds to suggest that their behaviour is a direct response to protected "whistleblowing" then you need to discuss this with the solicitor. Apart from that I fear there will be little he can do if they are determined, for whatever reason, to be awkward.

Taiko

Undervalued, would it be ok to drop you a quick PM with regards to that protected disclosure quickly?

FBaby

I have asked HR, and the response I got was "OH tell us you can't drive for work purposes".

So did you state that you don't commute for work purposes but for your own? Have you asked to see their policy on 'travelling for work purposes' and seen anything relating to commuting?

Undervalued

Taiko wrote: »

Undervalued, would it be ok to drop you a quick PM with regards to that protected disclosure quickly?

Sorry but no.

I'm am happy to respond as best I can to the thread but I don't claim any expertise regarding protected disclosures.

Also I have always cautioned against giving advice by PM on forums such as this. You have no idea of the qualifications or experience of the person you are dealing with. At least if the advice is on the forum anybody who disagrees can say so and explain why they believe the advice to be wrong.

Sorry.

Taiko

That's fine. I've often dealt with student finance advice (own extra area of expertise), and operated similar unless it was very specific.

I have made the statement that it was for my own purpose, but been shot down that they deem it to be a work purpose. There is no policy in place to state either way.