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

sultan123

NCC1701-A said:

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.

This is great point. They have to give you reasonable amount of notice to start with

Duk

Thank you for your comments, everyone.

My job is quite senior and I report to the legal director.

a) Whilst EVERYONE is replaceable, It is not that easy to find people who do my job, especially to a good level in 3 months. The company I left are still looking for and had to outsource it, So I do have some negotiating power.

b) I am looking for a new role, I have had 4 interviews already, and have been offered one job which I'm not too keen on but I'm giving it the week the think over.

c) Usually in my line of work as I get to see a lot of sensitive material we are given garden leave, not always the case though. But I do like the suggestion of saying it is too much of a change and I need time to adapt, For example, I do not know if my car would actually make it there 3 days a week without me buying a new one.

At least I now have some negotiating power and with an offer on the table, I could potentially just say, It's unreasonable and I may have to start looking for a new role.

getmore4less

Ath_Wat said:

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.   

That's the key the company would have to sue for losses for breach of contract for not coming into the office.

They have admitted it's because some of their other employees are not happy

Be fun quantifying that loss a few of our employees became less productive because they could not see what another employee was doing that has nothing to do with them.

The company should be looking at shutting down the dissent in their staff.

Said it before wonder if the manager has gone rouge and would not get support from their seniors.

They needed to headhunt probably won't go down well if they have to do it again.

Op needs to make it clear unless there is a performance issue with their roll working from home they won accommodate others moaning and potentially under performing.

Op if you have a skill set in demand consider contracting/consulting.

sultan123

Duk said:

Thank you for your comments, everyone.

My job is quite senior and I report to the legal director.

a) Whilst EVERYONE is replaceable, It is not that easy to find people who do my job, especially to a good level in 3 months. The company I left are still looking for and had to outsource it, So I do have some negotiating power.

b) I am looking for a new role, I have had 4 interviews already, and have been offered one job which I'm not too keen on but I'm giving it the week the think over.

c) Usually in my line of work as I get to see a lot of sensitive material we are given garden leave, not always the case though. But I do like the suggestion of saying it is too much of a change and I need time to adapt, For example, I do not know if my car would actually make it there 3 days a week without me buying a new one.

At least I now have some negotiating power and with an offer on the table, I could potentially just say, It's unreasonable and I may have to start looking for a new role.

What sector are you in?

They have also not given you reasonable notice of changing your terms

Duk

sultan123 said:

Duk said:

Thank you for your comments, everyone.

My job is quite senior and I report to the legal director.

a) Whilst EVERYONE is replaceable, It is not that easy to find people who do my job, especially to a good level in 3 months. The company I left are still looking for and had to outsource it, So I do have some negotiating power.

b) I am looking for a new role, I have had 4 interviews already, and have been offered one job which I'm not too keen on but I'm giving it the week the think over.

c) Usually in my line of work as I get to see a lot of sensitive material we are given garden leave, not always the case though. But I do like the suggestion of saying it is too much of a change and I need time to adapt, For example, I do not know if my car would actually make it there 3 days a week without me buying a new one.

At least I now have some negotiating power and with an offer on the table, I could potentially just say, It's unreasonable and I may have to start looking for a new role.

What sector are you in?

They have also not given you reasonable notice of changing your terms

Information Security, Risk and Governance.

oscarward

I had a job similar, the company said home based but I was expected in the office at least one day a week. The difference was they paid expenses, mileage and hotel etc. if more than one day. West mids to leatherhead so not cheap.

so if company asks to change then will they pay .45 per mile and £130 per night?. 

Jillanddy

Undervalued said:

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?

But wrongful dismissal isn't a claim your can make if you quit your job and refuse to serve notice. Wrongful dismissal is if the employer dismisses you and there is a quantifiable contractual loss because the employer refuses to honour a term. It is being suggested that the OP resign with immediate effect - the loss in that case is (potentially) the employers.Ath_Wat said:

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.   

With that clarification I would agree - provided the OP resigns with notice (whether or not the employer wants them to work it) then that would provide a defence. But the original advice was "I'd just quit and refuse to work 3 months notice". I was warning against assuming that position was legally safe.

Undervalued

Jillanddy said:

Undervalued said:

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?

But wrongful dismissal isn't a claim your can make if you quit your job and refuse to serve notice. Wrongful dismissal is if the employer dismisses you and there is a quantifiable contractual loss because the employer refuses to honour a term. It is being suggested that the OP resign with immediate effect - the loss in that case is (potentially) the employers.Ath_Wat said:

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.   

With that clarification I would agree - provided the OP resigns with notice (whether or not the employer wants them to work it) then that would provide a defence. But the original advice was "I'd just quit and refuse to work 3 months notice". I was warning against assuming that position was legally safe.

Yes, I know. 

I was assuming that the OP refuses to change location, on the basis that was not what was agreed when he was "head hunted". That give the employer two options: Go along with it, at least for the duration of the three months notice, or dismiss him. If he is dismissed and he can persuade a tribunal that this is a fundamental breach of contract then that amounts to wrongful dismissal.

That said, as I indicated way back, the real problem here is that the OP didn't use his enhanced negotiating position to get a properly drafted "contract" saying that he would only be required to work from home.

Ath_Wat

Jillanddy said:

Undervalued said:

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?

But wrongful dismissal isn't a claim your can make if you quit your job and refuse to serve notice. Wrongful dismissal is if the employer dismisses you and there is a quantifiable contractual loss because the employer refuses to honour a term. It is being suggested that the OP resign with immediate effect - the loss in that case is (potentially) the employers.Ath_Wat said:

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.   

With that clarification I would agree - provided the OP resigns with notice (whether or not the employer wants them to work it) then that would provide a defence. But the original advice was "I'd just quit and refuse to work 3 months notice". I was warning against assuming that position was legally safe.

I would refuse to work 3 months notice going in to the office, as the OP fears they may be asked to, is indeed what I intended to say there.  There's no reason to refuse to work 3 months notice from home as there's no material change in place then.

sultan123

Ath_Wat said:

Jillanddy said:

Undervalued said:

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?

But wrongful dismissal isn't a claim your can make if you quit your job and refuse to serve notice. Wrongful dismissal is if the employer dismisses you and there is a quantifiable contractual loss because the employer refuses to honour a term. It is being suggested that the OP resign with immediate effect - the loss in that case is (potentially) the employers.Ath_Wat said:

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.   

With that clarification I would agree - provided the OP resigns with notice (whether or not the employer wants them to work it) then that would provide a defence. But the original advice was "I'd just quit and refuse to work 3 months notice". I was warning against assuming that position was legally safe.

I would refuse to work 3 months notice going in to the office, as the OP fears they may be asked to, is indeed what I intended to say there.  There's no reason to refuse to work 3 months notice from home as there's no material change in place then.

I cannot see them doing anything if OP did this. Especially as it is a notice period.