Forced Move

sangie595

Tallyboom wrote: »

Sangie595 - you do not accept private messages so cannot elaborate further on the politics behind the new location.

No, I do not. Giving advice by PM encourages some real wide boss to take discussion off the boards for various nefarious reasons. If something is so confidential that it cannot possibly be shared on an anonymous board where an employer is unlikely to look - and even if they did, they have nothing to gain from the facts and the truth - then you need your trades union or your solicitor.

However, I am going to say this again. It doesn't matter what the politics behind the situation are. The fact is that the Civil Service had authorised this office move. The office isn't leased in your managers name. It's the Civil Service. And they will have processes that need to be signed off before completing a financial commitment. Your employer is the Civil Service, not the manager. So you need to go to your contract. But even without a mobility clause, you have said enough to conclude that the law is not on your side - mobility when changing an office location can be enforced and it is being. Employees do not get to dictate where their office location will be sited - not you, and not your manager. This is a civil service decision and it stands. Employment exists to promote the employers business interests, not to pay your bills. Sorry, it's a harsh world - and employment isn't a social service. I sympathize with your position. But the employer doesn't need to. So unless you can prove that your manager has committed the Civil Service to some financial or business decision without due authority, then it comes straight back to what I have told you already. You comply, or, one way or another you find yourself out of that job. And it still all falls down to your contractual terms. Because no matter what the policy or the contract say, the decision to move is made. You might delay it by submitting a grievance. But I don't see that you will stop it. More likely you will be painting a target on your back. Employers in general do not care about your child care or someone's disability or whatever. These are not things they must consider before making a business decision. You are entitled to ask for reduced or flexible working hours. You aren't entitled to have what you want. Employment doesn't work like that.

Tallyboom

The Civil Service do not own or lease our locations.My employer did not initiate this move. My boss did (with the organisation that owns the sites).

TELLIT01

Tallyboom wrote: »

The Civil Service do not own or lease our locations.My employer did not initiate this move. My boss did (with the organisation that owns the sites).

Sorry, but however much you try you are not going to convince those with experience of the Civil Service, that a person who manages 4 people has the authority to terminate the agreement to occupy one property and move to another. Any move, even within the same building, isn't a simple matter.
When moving to a new address there is a mass of logistical work to be done, e.g. address change, phone number changes, removals, refitting the new premises. What you are claiming happened simply doesn't make any sense at all.
You actually seem to be suggesting that the manager set up all the agreements to rent where you are currently based and has done the same with the new location. If, as you say, the Civil Service doesn't own or lease your current location, who is the occupancy agreement with? Who pays all the utility bills? Who is responsible for maintenance?

sangie595

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Sorry, but however much you try you are not going to convince those with experience of the Civil Service, that a person who manages 4 people has the authority to terminate the agreement to occupy one property and move to another. Any move, even within the same building, isn't a simple matter.
When moving to a new address there is a mass of logistical work to be done, e.g. address change, phone number changes, removals, refitting the new premises. What you are claiming happened simply doesn't make any sense at all.
You actually seem to be suggesting that the manager set up all the agreements to rent where you are currently based and has done the same with the new location. If, as you say, the Civil Service doesn't own or lease your current location, who is the occupancy agreement with? Who pays all the utility bills? Who is responsible for maintenance?

Quite. Civil Service managers, even at much higher levels, simply do not have the financial authority to do as the OP claims their manager has. So if they have evidence that the manager had done this, then they should be submitting a grievance with all their evidence. But they need to be careful with their allegations - these are extremely serious allegations, involving financial impropriety amongst other things. If unfounded the manager will be perfectly entitled to submit a counter grievance of malicious conduct, and that is another way of exiting the service.

I notice that the OP is making a whole series of wild accusations, but has not once answered the points raised. I wonder why?

lincroft1710

Tallyboom wrote: »

If it was the Civil Service then where are my forms to officially tell me about the move and enquire whether I am happy about it?

Have moved office twice with CS and have never had any "forms". CS frequently move or close offices. My first CS office has had 6 different locations in the same small city over a period of 60 yrs. In each case it was a done deal, usually based on business or economic needs.

Without giving too much more away as you never know who is reading, no contract agreements would have been needed for the new location, as it already came under our department. (I may PM you to elaborate on that as it is a bit complicated and would give away my anonymity).

The only person with a mobility clause is my boss. The rest of us are AAs and AOs, the effect on the 3 of us is a huge detriment. Moving child care providers is not an option. She does the school pick ups and drop offs as well.

The 'reasonable travel to work time' for a full time worker (it doesnt stipulate for a part time worker) is an hour, which I already do.

Your choice to live that distance from where you work

This move will add 20 minutes each way to my travelling time, but with my personal life already set up with my current working pattern and conditions, it is not feasible.

Not your employer's problem

This really isnt me whinging or making mountain out of molehills. This impacts 3 out of 4 of us in the office. This change could possibly affect my job, and thus my ability to pay my bills!!

Again, not your employer's problem

I realise the above replies are harsh but that is the reality of the situation. My former colleagues would be laughing at your extra 20 mins, a few years after I took early retirement from the CS, our office was closed and the 3 nearest alternatives are 2 both with 25 mile each way road journey (no rail link) and one with 40 min rail journey followed by 10 min walk to office (so adding at least 1hr 40 min to working day). On the return rail journey it is often standing room only for half of the distance.

Manxman_in_exile

nicechap wrote: »

So what have the union said about it?

That's what I'd ask too.


And I agree with the others. I worked in the NHS and our managers could barely authorise a change of desks without it being signed off in triplicate. How can removal expenses etc have been authorised? Can the manager commit the Civil Service to a lease?


Sounds bizarre.

Tallyboom

The union, and my HR do not know about the move, my managers manager only knew about the move after the refurb started. The refurb for us to go there was absorded into an existing refurb that was ongoing. The sites are owned/leased by a third party. Although I am a civil servant I work for an outer organisation.

It all sounds completely off the charts and it is because I have undergone moves in the dame department (but under different section) and been kept in the loop from start to finish.

Everything regarding this move has been relayed to us via our manager and casual conversations. I can categorically state the move is not for business or economic reasons.

Lincroft - When I took on this role I was happy(ish) to commute the hour to get here, and as such worked my life around it. Im not happy to have an additional 40 minute minimum car journey added to my 2 hour round trip commute. Which I couldnt do anyway as I would be screwed for childcare.

Manxman_in_exile

Both your union and HR don't know about this? And your manager's manager didn't either?


surely relocating staff in the Civil Service potentially has HR and financial implications?

lincroft1710

So was your department part of the CS which was privatised or outsourced

Wayne_O_Mac

Tallyboom wrote: »

There are no business related reasons for moving (although if he put a business case in I have not had sight of that).

"There's no business related reasons for moving! Actually there might be, but I haven't seen them!"