Being asked to come into the office 3 days a week on a work from home contract signed 3 months ago

Thrugelmir

Ath_Wat said:

Thrugelmir said:

Duk said:

 The shortest but no means the quickest route is 71 miles to the office, so a 142 mile round trip.

It now appears some of my colleagues are not happy that I work from home and they don't which has put me in an awkward situation. 

That's not the employers concern. You knew where they were based when you applied for the role and accepted the offer of the position. 

Management has to look at the bigger picture. When exceptions are made it can easily lead to unrest and disunity. Teams do work better face to face. 

Don't you have any issues at all with them saying one thing and doing another?

I'd just quit and refuse to work 3 months notice; I doubt they could stand it up in court that it was a reasonable requirement to backtrack on that basic condition so quickly.

That’s your prerogative as an employee. No one is indispensable. Someone else will fill the role.  There’s a business to run . That’s where the focus will be. 

Marcon

Duk said:

Jillanddy said:

You have worked there a few months. So they can dismiss you for any reason, or no reason, at any point in the next 18+ months. So I am struggling to see how this isn't going to escalate into an argument. They are perfectly able to change your place of work, and even without the clause saying that, they still could do it - you have no employment protection on this. I am only surprised they didn't see this coming if they don't allow your colleagues the same terms.

I do not exactly do the same work as my colleagues, I am in a different role, I am compliance and governance, they are customer facing and need to be on site. 

I was headhunted by this company from my previous company due to my skill set, they knew exactly where I lived when they offered me the contract and why they offered homeworking as they knew I would not accept or could accommodate driving to the office multiple times a week.

Then pushback and see if they'll capitulate. You'll soon find out how valuable you are to them - and might be pleasantly surprised. On the other hand, you might not be...

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir said:

Ath_Wat said:

Thrugelmir said:

Duk said:

 The shortest but no means the quickest route is 71 miles to the office, so a 142 mile round trip.

It now appears some of my colleagues are not happy that I work from home and they don't which has put me in an awkward situation. 

That's not the employers concern. You knew where they were based when you applied for the role and accepted the offer of the position. 

Management has to look at the bigger picture. When exceptions are made it can easily lead to unrest and disunity. Teams do work better face to face. 

Don't you have any issues at all with them saying one thing and doing another?

I'd just quit and refuse to work 3 months notice; I doubt they could stand it up in court that it was a reasonable requirement to backtrack on that basic condition so quickly.

That’s your prerogative as an employee. No one is indispensable. Someone else will fill the role.  There’s a business to run . That’s where the focus will be. 

It's just bad management to headhunt and hire someone who lives miles away on the basis a job will be working from home only to change your mind three months in and demand they make a lengthy commute. That isn't normal practice and it's not in the company's interest either as they'll probably have to go through the hiring process again when the OP quits.

Legally, there's probably not much the OP can do about it, but the company have clearly messed up and I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.

Jillanddy

Duk said:

Thrugelmir said:

Duk said:

 The shortest but no means the quickest route is 71 miles to the office, so a 142 mile round trip.

It now appears some of my colleagues are not happy that I work from home and they don't which has put me in an awkward situation. 

That's not the employers concern. You knew where they were based when you applied for the role and accepted the offer of the position. 

Management has to look at the bigger picture. When exceptions are made it can easily lead to unrest and disunity. Teams do work better face to face. 

I completely disagree. it's contractual.

This is why it was advertised as a home working job and stated in my contract as "change your normal place of work to another location as reasonably required.", reasonably being the keyword.

Do you think the employers in the USA that currently hire people in the UK would expect them to travel to the office every morning?

You may disagree as much as you want. But you would be wrong. Your "contract" is next to worthless.
(a) The contract you quoted enables them to change the location of the work, and since there is no legal definition of what "reasonable" means, then they can change the location and say that it is reasonable because your home based work is adversely impacting of staff morale.
(b) you have less than six months service. They can dismiss you any time they want for almost anything the want - like not being in the right location - and there is absolutely nothing that you could do about it. 

It is foolish to turn to US employment practices as an example, since US employment laws are notoriously some of the worst in the developed world. a US employer would have absolutely no hesitation in dismissing you, and probably without notice. 

Regardless of whether your colleagues do the same role or not, the employer is identifying that this issue is causing unrest amongst the staff, and that is a headache for them. Unless they do a total 360, they are not going to accept any compromise that doesn't include time spent in the office, and that doesn't seem practical or feasible for you - or something you are willing to negotiate anyway.

You therefore have no options, and the employer has all of them. 

You are confusing people here telling you the truth with being them awkward or argumentative. You came and asked a question, and the answers you got were accurate but not to your liking. Personally, I work from home, seldom go to the office, and I agree with you that many roles can easily be done from home. The problem for you is that my employer agrees that, for whatever reason, it suits them equally well. Your employer tried it, and has found it doesn't suit them. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. If they choose to maintain that position, then you either go to the office, or you resign, or you get dismissed. In your shoes I'd be looking for another job. 

Ath_Wat

Jillanddy said:

Duk said:

Thrugelmir said:

Duk said:

 The shortest but no means the quickest route is 71 miles to the office, so a 142 mile round trip.

It now appears some of my colleagues are not happy that I work from home and they don't which has put me in an awkward situation. 

That's not the employers concern. You knew where they were based when you applied for the role and accepted the offer of the position. 

Management has to look at the bigger picture. When exceptions are made it can easily lead to unrest and disunity. Teams do work better face to face. 

I completely disagree. it's contractual.

This is why it was advertised as a home working job and stated in my contract as "change your normal place of work to another location as reasonably required.", reasonably being the keyword.

Do you think the employers in the USA that currently hire people in the UK would expect them to travel to the office every morning?

You may disagree as much as you want. But you would be wrong. Your "contract" is next to worthless.
(a) The contract you quoted enables them to change the location of the work, and since there is no legal definition of what "reasonable" means, then they can change the location and say that it is reasonable because your home based work is adversely impacting of staff morale.
(b) you have less than six months service. They can dismiss you any time they want for almost anything the want - like not being in the right location - and there is absolutely nothing that you could do about it. 

It is foolish to turn to US employment practices as an example, since US employment laws are notoriously some of the worst in the developed world. a US employer would have absolutely no hesitation in dismissing you, and probably without notice. 

Regardless of whether your colleagues do the same role or not, the employer is identifying that this issue is causing unrest amongst the staff, and that is a headache for them. Unless they do a total 360, they are not going to accept any compromise that doesn't include time spent in the office, and that doesn't seem practical or feasible for you - or something you are willing to negotiate anyway.

You therefore have no options, and the employer has all of them. 

You are confusing people here telling you the truth with being them awkward or argumentative. You came and asked a question, and the answers you got were accurate but not to your liking. Personally, I work from home, seldom go to the office, and I agree with you that many roles can easily be done from home. The problem for you is that my employer agrees that, for whatever reason, it suits them equally well. Your employer tried it, and has found it doesn't suit them. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. If they choose to maintain that position, then you either go to the office, or you resign, or you get dismissed. In your shoes I'd be looking for another job. 

It's still idiotic on the part of the company.  Anyone employable elsewhere will quit.  The only people who would stay are those terrified they cannot get a job elsewhere, who would be unlikely to be good employees.  They've wasted their own time and money as much as the employees.

While the unrest among the staff may be the most important thing for them  turning round and saying they've passed probation so now have a 3 month notice period pushes this beyond the pale.  They should be apologising to the OP and making it as easy for them to leave as possible; probably with with a month or so pilon.  That's not the legal position but it is the decent and honourable one.

K_S

@duk Sorry to hear this OP, you're absolutely right to be upset as the employer has been duplicitous by advertising a role as home-based and now changing that to hybrid with no discussion a few months down the line.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything you can do from a legal point of view. If it's not practical to go hybrid then you could ask for a few months to transition, or negotiate to start with a day and week and reassess in a few months, etc. and in the meantime concentrate your efforts on looking for another role with a more honest employer.

I hope it works out in the end, either here or elsewhere, good luck!

NCC1701-A

How critical is your work to the functioning of the business? Do you want to stay there in light of the change? Presumably you have evidence of the job being work from home (advert, emails, timesheets). If it was me, I'd be walking as it sounds like a quality management role and good people can get alternative work easy.


whilst I agree with others the contract allows them to vary work location, I'd argue the change is so fundamental and requires sufficient time to adjust, 3 months or more, O and by the way, here's my 3 month notice but I'm happy to leave earlier if you like.

getmore4less

Everything is negotiable and in cases like this you can forget most of the legal and contractual it is down to the negotiation.

Goodwill and trust will drive the end point.

Other Employee unrest is their problem.

Currently they are looking at the easiest solution, there are others, you need to be the less easy solution.

I would push back and tell them this is not what you signed up for it was clear the understanding was WFH most of the time.

If they want to change that then their proposal of 3 days a week  is unacceptable and not reasonable.  

Lay it on thick they headhunted you and are not keeping to their side of the bargain.
POint out the request and change of notice was obviously deliberate to make it harder for you. 

Be careful of your case against the change  as each point can be  nulled out till you have nothing left.
eg.
if you point out the extra travel time, they can allow some/all to be work time.
if you point out the cost they offer to pay.
etc.

It will come down do they need you more they you need them.

I would be having a close look at the contract for probation periods and notice to see if they slipped up with that.

I would be having a close look at the scope of the work to see if you can leverage that.
If it involves those other employees in any way can you be all over them like rash so they don't want you there 

If the message is they won't be negotiating then throw the loss of trust and confidence  into the ring.

Consider the alternatives and how quick to get  different job as that drive your timings

If they uses a recruitment company consider using them in any job search.



Another option, is go over your managers head they may be looking for the simple solution but the higher ups may not be happy with this if they don't know.

although compliance type roll should report in quite high up.

Alfrescodave

One option might be to negotiate the 3 days down to 1 day a week in the office. Whilst not perfect it might be a compromise that both parties find acceptable and gives you time to look for other employment if this doesn't work for you.

Jillanddy

Ath_Wat said:

Jillanddy said:

Duk said:

Thrugelmir said:

Duk said:

 The shortest but no means the quickest route is 71 miles to the office, so a 142 mile round trip.

It now appears some of my colleagues are not happy that I work from home and they don't which has put me in an awkward situation. 

That's not the employers concern. You knew where they were based when you applied for the role and accepted the offer of the position. 

Management has to look at the bigger picture. When exceptions are made it can easily lead to unrest and disunity. Teams do work better face to face. 

I completely disagree. it's contractual.

This is why it was advertised as a home working job and stated in my contract as "change your normal place of work to another location as reasonably required.", reasonably being the keyword.

Do you think the employers in the USA that currently hire people in the UK would expect them to travel to the office every morning?

You may disagree as much as you want. But you would be wrong. Your "contract" is next to worthless.
(a) The contract you quoted enables them to change the location of the work, and since there is no legal definition of what "reasonable" means, then they can change the location and say that it is reasonable because your home based work is adversely impacting of staff morale.
(b) you have less than six months service. They can dismiss you any time they want for almost anything the want - like not being in the right location - and there is absolutely nothing that you could do about it. 

It is foolish to turn to US employment practices as an example, since US employment laws are notoriously some of the worst in the developed world. a US employer would have absolutely no hesitation in dismissing you, and probably without notice. 

Regardless of whether your colleagues do the same role or not, the employer is identifying that this issue is causing unrest amongst the staff, and that is a headache for them. Unless they do a total 360, they are not going to accept any compromise that doesn't include time spent in the office, and that doesn't seem practical or feasible for you - or something you are willing to negotiate anyway.

You therefore have no options, and the employer has all of them. 

You are confusing people here telling you the truth with being them awkward or argumentative. You came and asked a question, and the answers you got were accurate but not to your liking. Personally, I work from home, seldom go to the office, and I agree with you that many roles can easily be done from home. The problem for you is that my employer agrees that, for whatever reason, it suits them equally well. Your employer tried it, and has found it doesn't suit them. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. If they choose to maintain that position, then you either go to the office, or you resign, or you get dismissed. In your shoes I'd be looking for another job. 

It's still idiotic on the part of the company.  Anyone employable elsewhere will quit.  The only people who would stay are those terrified they cannot get a job elsewhere, who would be unlikely to be good employees.  They've wasted their own time and money as much as the employees.

While the unrest among the staff may be the most important thing for them  turning round and saying they've passed probation so now have a 3 month notice period pushes this beyond the pale.  They should be apologising to the OP and making it as easy for them to leave as possible; probably with with a month or so pilon.  That's not the legal position but it is the decent and honourable one.

I entirely agree. Unfortunately the law allows employers to be idiots. If it didn't, there would be precious few employers left.