Company relocating office

TELLIT01

I thought redundancy only applied when a job ceased to exist, and was not a method of paying off people who didn't want the job for whatever reason.

Andy_L

TELLIT01 said:

I thought redundancy only applied when a job ceased to exist, and was not a method of paying off people who didn't want the job for whatever reason.

The job has ceased to exist at that location

"Employers can make their employees redundant if they decide not to move."

https://www.gov.uk/employer-relocation-your-rights

400ixl

Not always, there are times where other factors can make a job no longer suitable and trigger a redundancy situation. Office relocations can be an example, usually when an office closes and the person does not want to relocate (the job still exists), not usually for cross town office moves though. But I wouldn't count out there being times where it has (everything has an example somewhere).

Jude57

400ixl said:

Not always, there are times where other factors can make a job no longer suitable and trigger a redundancy situation. Office relocations can be an example, usually when an office closes and the person does not want to relocate (the job still exists), not usually for cross town office moves though. But I wouldn't count out there being times where it has (everything has an example somewhere).

I've certainly known of situations where public sector employers have moved a function several hundred miles away and where redundancy has been available to staff unwilling to move. It happened to a friend where relocation expenses weren't enough of an incentive to move their entire family to the other side of the country, disrupting children's schools and effectively ending their partner's employment in a highly specialised field. There was no suitable redeployment available even in the longer term, so they were offered, and accepted, redundancy on fairly reasonable terms.

If it can happen with such a large employer, which could presumably be expected to be able to redeploy staff relatively simply due to natural wastage, it's bound to happen with smaller employers who don't have that capacity. The OP's situation, as frustrating as it is for them, doesn't sound to me as though it would qualify as a redundancy situation given that it's effectively just a slightly longer commute.

Own_Worst_Enermy

Interested to hear peoples thoughts

6 weeks ago, a group of us started in a brand-new depot, only 21 minutes relocation time from town where old dirty depot was compared to brand spanking new one with parking. 

Could not understand why people did not chose to move with new depot. Apparently mass exodus and people got 'paid off'.
Job title didn't change like my experience with another company, it's awfully strange and strained but we only found out on first day.

To the point me and the other people have never been able to move off basic duties and as crazy as it sounds, I often find myself wondering if the 'redundancy' has something to do it with it. 

Ath_Wat

Own_Worst_Enermy said:

Interested to hear peoples thoughts

6 weeks ago, a group of us started in a brand-new depot, only 21 minutes relocation time from town where old dirty depot was compared to brand spanking new one with parking. 

Could not understand why people did not chose to move with new depot. Apparently mass exodus and people got 'paid off'.
Job title didn't change like my experience with another company, it's awfully strange and strained but we only found out on first day.

To the point me and the other people have never been able to move off basic duties and as crazy as it sounds, I often find myself wondering if the 'redundancy' has something to do it with it. 

As usual, I can barely understand a word you are saying here.  Read it back - I can't possibly think that if you sit and read that you will think "Yes, that perfectly explains my situation".

Whatever, it doesn't make much sense to append this to a thread it is only tangentially related to.