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

Ath_Wat

Jillanddy said:

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.

Well, to a  degree.  I don't think the law in this case would allow the employer to be idiotic enough to demand the OP works 3 months notice travelling in 3 days a week.  That appears to me to be one of their main concerns, and I think they'd be absolutely fine in terminating the contract and not doing that.

Undervalued

Duk said:

Hi,

In January I started a new job with, Better salary, contracted work from home and the job I have wanted for a while.

I understood there would be days that I would need to go into the office due to team meetings (once or twice a month) and development reviews or manager meetings, but I was fine with that. 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. Today I have been told by my manager that I must attend the office 3 days a week as no one see's me or see's the work I do, other than my manager. I only imagine it's a few more months before its 5 days a week.

Whilst on the phone she told me I passed my probation period, Which means I now have to give 3 months notice instead of 1 weeks notice.

The contract wording states:

"Location:
You will be based at home. You may be required to work at and if requested change your normal place of work to another location as reasonably required."

Where do I stand with this legally? I do not think I say much? but what is reasonable? what can I do or say to put this right? I do not want to escalate this into an argument with my new employer.

Many Thanks

More Info:

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.

* edited for more info

Too late now but if this was a genuine "head hunted" situation there may well have been scope to negotiate something very different to their standard contract.

Even the "two year rule" can, effectively, be got around with things like pre-agreed no fault severance packages or an up front "golden hello" etc. It all depends on how much the firm want you and also, to an extent, how senior the position.

Jillanddy

Ath_Wat said:

Jillanddy said:

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.

Well, to a  degree.  I don't think the law in this case would allow the employer to be idiotic enough to demand the OP works 3 months notice travelling in 3 days a week.  That appears to me to be one of their main concerns, and I think they'd be absolutely fine in terminating the contract and not doing that.

I very definitely wouldn't be so certain about that. I know you know that an employee can be sued by the employer for doing exactly that. And that's just the legal position. There's references to consider as well, and potential employers may not be inclined to believe the OP's version of their "good" reasons - or simply may not agree with their good reasons. There is absolutely nothing in law that the OP could do, so "the law" won't get a say in it - the contract very clearly states that the OP's workplace can be relocated, and courts are highly unlikely to wat to get involved in the messy business of trying to decide what is reasonable and what isn't. 

You may be correct, and if the OP walked they might get away with it. They also might get sued, and the employer might win. There might be other adverse consequences of following that advice. And the OP needs to understand that. 

Thrugelmir

Deleted_User said:

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.

Six months ago the outlook with the pandemic was uncertain. Times have changed.  The decision made was right at the time and possibly right now.  Calling it bad management is easy from afar. Companies aren't run with the benefit of hindsight. 

Ath_Wat

Jillanddy said:

Ath_Wat said:

Jillanddy said:

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.

Well, to a  degree.  I don't think the law in this case would allow the employer to be idiotic enough to demand the OP works 3 months notice travelling in 3 days a week.  That appears to me to be one of their main concerns, and I think they'd be absolutely fine in terminating the contract and not doing that.

I very definitely wouldn't be so certain about that. I know you know that an employee can be sued by the employer for doing exactly that. And that's just the legal position. There's references to consider as well, and potential employers may not be inclined to believe the OP's version of their "good" reasons - or simply may not agree with their good reasons. There is absolutely nothing in law that the OP could do, so "the law" won't get a say in it - the contract very clearly states that the OP's workplace can be relocated, and courts are highly unlikely to wat to get involved in the messy business of trying to decide what is reasonable and what isn't. 

You may be correct, and if the OP walked they might get away with it. They also might get sued, and the employer might win. There might be other adverse consequences of following that advice. And the OP needs to understand that. 

I would be amazed in this case.  That would mean  that any contract that allowed for movement of location,  which is all of them pretty much, could demand that you start working in Aberdeen from tomorrow and you have to travel there under your own steam until your resignation period is up.

That can't possibly hold up.

(I am fairly sure that in reality the company would accept 3 months working from home as notice, or agree an early termination, so it would never come to that.  All you would have to do is say that it's impossible for you to travel to the office but you are prepared to work your notice from home.  They could sack you (which is largely what you want), but they couldn't sue you.)

icepack

It is bad of the company to make changes like this to be honest. I would resign.

Jillanddy

Ath_Wat said:

Jillanddy said:

Ath_Wat said:

Jillanddy said:

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.

Well, to a  degree.  I don't think the law in this case would allow the employer to be idiotic enough to demand the OP works 3 months notice travelling in 3 days a week.  That appears to me to be one of their main concerns, and I think they'd be absolutely fine in terminating the contract and not doing that.

I very definitely wouldn't be so certain about that. I know you know that an employee can be sued by the employer for doing exactly that. And that's just the legal position. There's references to consider as well, and potential employers may not be inclined to believe the OP's version of their "good" reasons - or simply may not agree with their good reasons. There is absolutely nothing in law that the OP could do, so "the law" won't get a say in it - the contract very clearly states that the OP's workplace can be relocated, and courts are highly unlikely to wat to get involved in the messy business of trying to decide what is reasonable and what isn't. 

You may be correct, and if the OP walked they might get away with it. They also might get sued, and the employer might win. There might be other adverse consequences of following that advice. And the OP needs to understand that. 

I would be amazed in this case.  That would mean  that any contract that allowed for movement of location,  which is all of them pretty much, could demand that you start working in Aberdeen from tomorrow and you have to travel there under your own steam until your resignation period is up.

That can't possibly hold up.

You are making one assumption that I do not think holds water. Which court would you take it to? Because only an Employment Tribunal has the jurisdiction to make that determination, and the OP can't apply to a one because they don't have enough service. And as I said, the legal consequences are only one of the consequences - there are plenty of others. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you - I am just concerned that the OP doesn't make the mistake of thinking that they can walk away with no consequences, because none of us can guarantee that. Negotiation and agreement - whatever that leads to - is a far safer course than blindly believing that the law will support you, because that is far from clear in this case. They did, after all, know where the nearest office was when they took the job, and as others have pointed out, at that stage other factors were also in play. What an employer might have agreed during Covid restrictions may not be seen as quite as reasonable now, or in three months time. 

Undervalued

Jillanddy said:

Ath_Wat said:

Jillanddy said:

Ath_Wat said:

Jillanddy said:

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.

Well, to a  degree.  I don't think the law in this case would allow the employer to be idiotic enough to demand the OP works 3 months notice travelling in 3 days a week.  That appears to me to be one of their main concerns, and I think they'd be absolutely fine in terminating the contract and not doing that.

I very definitely wouldn't be so certain about that. I know you know that an employee can be sued by the employer for doing exactly that. And that's just the legal position. There's references to consider as well, and potential employers may not be inclined to believe the OP's version of their "good" reasons - or simply may not agree with their good reasons. There is absolutely nothing in law that the OP could do, so "the law" won't get a say in it - the contract very clearly states that the OP's workplace can be relocated, and courts are highly unlikely to wat to get involved in the messy business of trying to decide what is reasonable and what isn't. 

You may be correct, and if the OP walked they might get away with it. They also might get sued, and the employer might win. There might be other adverse consequences of following that advice. And the OP needs to understand that. 

I would be amazed in this case.  That would mean  that any contract that allowed for movement of location,  which is all of them pretty much, could demand that you start working in Aberdeen from tomorrow and you have to travel there under your own steam until your resignation period is up.

That can't possibly hold up.

You are making one assumption that I do not think holds water. Which court would you take it to? Because only an Employment Tribunal has the jurisdiction to make that determination, and the OP can't apply to a one because they don't have enough service. And as I said, the legal consequences are only one of the consequences - there are plenty of others. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you - I am just concerned that the OP doesn't make the mistake of thinking that they can walk away with no consequences, because none of us can guarantee that. Negotiation and agreement - whatever that leads to - is a far safer course than blindly believing that the law will support you, because that is far from clear in this case. They did, after all, know where the nearest office was when they took the job, and as others have pointed out, at that stage other factors were also in play. What an employer might have agreed during Covid restrictions may not be seen as quite as reasonable now, or in three months time. 

If they were claiming wrongful dismissal (i.e. breach of contract) then unlike unfair dismissal (in most circumstances) there is no two year qualifying period.

So if the employer's interpretation of the contract was unreasonable then they might be able to make a claim?

Ath_Wat

Jillanddy said:

Ath_Wat said:

Jillanddy said:

Ath_Wat said:

Jillanddy said:

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.

Well, to a  degree.  I don't think the law in this case would allow the employer to be idiotic enough to demand the OP works 3 months notice travelling in 3 days a week.  That appears to me to be one of their main concerns, and I think they'd be absolutely fine in terminating the contract and not doing that.

I very definitely wouldn't be so certain about that. I know you know that an employee can be sued by the employer for doing exactly that. And that's just the legal position. There's references to consider as well, and potential employers may not be inclined to believe the OP's version of their "good" reasons - or simply may not agree with their good reasons. There is absolutely nothing in law that the OP could do, so "the law" won't get a say in it - the contract very clearly states that the OP's workplace can be relocated, and courts are highly unlikely to wat to get involved in the messy business of trying to decide what is reasonable and what isn't. 

You may be correct, and if the OP walked they might get away with it. They also might get sued, and the employer might win. There might be other adverse consequences of following that advice. And the OP needs to understand that. 

I would be amazed in this case.  That would mean  that any contract that allowed for movement of location,  which is all of them pretty much, could demand that you start working in Aberdeen from tomorrow and you have to travel there under your own steam until your resignation period is up.

That can't possibly hold up.

You are making one assumption that I do not think holds water. Which court would you take it to? Because only an Employment Tribunal has the jurisdiction to make that determination, and the OP can't apply to a one because they don't have enough service. And as I said, the legal consequences are only one of the consequences - there are plenty of others. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you - I am just concerned that the OP doesn't make the mistake of thinking that they can walk away with no consequences, because none of us can guarantee that. Negotiation and agreement - whatever that leads to - is a far safer course than blindly believing that the law will support you, because that is far from clear in this case. They did, after all, know where the nearest office was when they took the job, and as others have pointed out, at that stage other factors were also in play. What an employer might have agreed during Covid restrictions may not be seen as quite as reasonable now, or in three months time. 

What would an employment tribunal have to do with it?  I am not suggesting for a minute the OP take the company to court, I am saying the company are very unlikely to sue them in a normal court if they refuse to drive in for 3 months and say they will serve notice working from home or leave early, the company's choice, and in my mind certain not to win if they do.  I'm taking it as read they are going to resign, of course, which they may not  want to do.   

sultan123

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. 

They also knew where OP was from when employed. It is a disgrace from the company to change it simply as some other employees said. 

OP has every right to bin job off