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

kimwp

I wouldn't focus too much on the distance you would have to travel, as that's fundamentally down to you (despite the company knowing where you live). But more on the definition of "reasonably". Being asked to come in so the other employees don't feel unfairly treated is unreasonable - you have different clauses in your contracts regarding location, so you are getting different "treatment". It's up to the manager to manage their understanding of this, not down to you to compensate for it.

Thrugelmir

kimwp said:

you have different clauses in your contracts regarding location, so you are getting different "treatment". 

Most likely the clauses are standard. Uniform contracts is the norm. The issue here is most likely the permission that's been granted. Other employees will be querying the differentiation between roles. Particularly if their own role can be undertaken satisfactorily from home, even just in part. 

Undervalued

kimwp said:

I wouldn't focus too much on the distance you would have to travel, as that's fundamentally down to you (despite the company knowing where you live). But more on the definition of "reasonably". Being asked to come in so the other employees don't feel unfairly treated is unreasonable - you have different clauses in your contracts regarding location, so you are getting different "treatment". It's up to the manager to manage their understanding of this, not down to you to compensate for it.

But the OP doesn't really, that is part of the problem.

The OP says that there was an agreement that he would work from home on a permanent basis . If that is so then yes, technically, that is part of his "contract". However that wasn't what was written in his (written) contract which gives the employer quite wide scope to change this. No doubt if there is a dispute the employer will "remember" the part of the original negotiations where this was discussed and suggest that the OP is mistaken.

The third hand account of what other employee's (allegedly) think about it is largely irrelevant as ultimately they have no say in the matter.

As I said earlier, if the location is crucial to the OP he should have refused to accept the written contract as the verbal agreement will be hard to prove.

Undervalued

Thrugelmir said:

kimwp said:

you have different clauses in your contracts regarding location, so you are getting different "treatment". 

Most likely the clauses are standard. Uniform contracts is the norm. The issue here is most likely the permission that's been granted. Other employees will be querying the differentiation between roles. Particularly if their own role can be undertaken satisfactorily from home, even just in part. 

Other employees have no right to a change in their terms just because the OP's are different. 

It is all a bit of a mess!

Thrugelmir

Undervalued said:

Thrugelmir said:

kimwp said:

you have different clauses in your contracts regarding location, so you are getting different "treatment". 

Most likely the clauses are standard. Uniform contracts is the norm. The issue here is most likely the permission that's been granted. Other employees will be querying the differentiation between roles. Particularly if their own role can be undertaken satisfactorily from home, even just in part. 

Other employees have no right to a change in their terms just because the OP's are different. 

It is all a bit of a mess!

Not a change in terms though. The employer retains ultimate control of what's permissable. 

Never surprises me how much is assumed and never formally clarified. With people having different interpretations of what was said. Or often not said or asked. As circumstances rarely remain static in business. 

MalMonroe

Hi, there's been a lot discussed here and I know you are thinking of leaving this job and I just wanted to say that I'd leave too. 

Because of this -

"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."

The company was happy to take you on as per the terms of your agreed employment contract but suddenly, because your colleagues don't like your terms and conditions, they are trying to backpedal. It hasn't put YOU in an awkward situation at all. It's put your bosses in an awkward situation. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone else sees what you are doing or the product of your work. It only matters that management are happy with your performance. Or it should do.

Who wants to work for a company like that? Not me.

But that's irrelevant now as I've been retired a few years and now work for myself. (I love my boss!)

In my last job as an employee I worked exclusively for the owner/managing director of an import/export company.

I was the only part-time member of office staff at the place and because I was part time, my boss allowed me great flexibility with working hours. That did not go down well with any of the other staff who often told me 'we don't have flexitime here'. My boss was happy with my work and with my working hours. But some colleagues were not.

He never approached me to discuss changing any terms of my contract, he told my co-workers to mind their own business and that he'd be setting up a system to check that their work was up to par on a regular basis. So they shot themselves in their collective foot. (No more 20 minute coffee and tea breaks!) Naturally I wasn't the most popular person there at all but I couldn't have cared less. My boss was happy with my conduct and I worked on a part time basis and didn't have to mix with them. If I'd had the opportunity to work from home I'd never have had to see them at all. 

I just think that's what your bosses should be like. They should have told your colleagues to shut up and get on with their own work because your job was nothing whatsoever to do with them. To say you were headhunted, the management's conduct is outrageous. What's the point of giving you a contract at all?

You could have a word with someone at acas, if you felt like it. I'm sure that employees must have some rights, even if they've not been at a place long. At the very least, the bosses could have approached you to make mutually agreeable changes to the contract they gave you that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

https://www.acas.org.uk/contact

I wish you all the very best for the future, it seems like you won't have any trouble getting something better though. Even if it is a bit of a faff to start all over again, let's hope the next employer is far more honourable and amenable.  

Thrugelmir

MalMonroe said:

They should have told your colleagues to shut up and get on with their own work because your job was nothing whatsoever to do with them. 

Seriously? That's an abrasive management style to say the least. Condescending and bordering on bullying. A guaranteed way to lose respect. 

Ath_Wat

Undervalued said:

Thrugelmir said:

kimwp said:

you have different clauses in your contracts regarding location, so you are getting different "treatment". 

Most likely the clauses are standard. Uniform contracts is the norm. The issue here is most likely the permission that's been granted. Other employees will be querying the differentiation between roles. Particularly if their own role can be undertaken satisfactorily from home, even just in part. 

Other employees have no right to a change in their terms just because the OP's are different. 

It is all a bit of a mess!

They don't have any right to a change in terms, but if the OPs terms are making everyone else dissatisfied, the best thing for the company might be to stop that even if it means getting rid of the OP, as long as they can do so legally.

They should just be more up front about it and make it as easy as reasonably possible for the OP in recognition of the fact that they made a mistake by hiring them.  Again though, legally they don't have to do that.  But a good company that had decided they couldn't carry on with the arrangement proposed would offer 3 months pay in lieu of notice, just because that's the right thing to do and it was their mistake.

happyc84

To the OP, I really feel for them, not easy on all accounts, I would leave, take the other job.
Too many times the interview process does not match the reality of working for a company. The probation  process is a 2 way process, and  it will cost them money to rehire. Life is too short, you are better than them. as Human league said in a song

Duk

So I spoke to ACAS today about the whole situation.

They have said that the wording in location has to relate to three categories and the reasonable location of work has to be premises owned by the company.

So my contract says my place of work will be at home which relates to remote, there is nothing in there about hybrid or on site working.

ACAS also told me something I am not quite sure on so I would appreciate some help.

I have been at my job 4 month now and I have a 3 month probation. My employer told me they were thinking of extending my probation which ACAS said they could not do in retrospect as the 3 months is already up. 

Now this is the bit I'm dubious about. Because I have had no formal or informal meetings or letters or any text about passing my probation ACAS told me I only have to give 1 week's notice and not 3 months. whilst as I past 3 months the company have to give me 3 months notice. This will probably lead to dismissal but I can take them to a tribunal for "wrongful dismissal" and not "unfair dismissal" as they have broken multiple aspects of the contract they have given me., Any tribunal the court would vote in my favour. 

How true is that? Because I have been offered a new job to start on Monday 30th.