Is this a Mobility Clause?

From my current contract

"Your normal place of work will be at the Company's premises from time to time, presently located at .........
You may be required to work at any other location, either in the United Kingdom or abroad (including but not limited to, visiting clients' premises or the premises of third parties) as may be reasonably required by the company and/or for the proper performance and exercise of your duties."
«13

Comments

  • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser Posts: 2,851 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 11 May 2018 at 1:50PM
    Well that says
    "Your normal place of work will be at the Company's premises from time to time, presently located at ........."

    Are they moving their main premises or just asking you to move? That phrasing means they can move it.
  • jobbingmusician
    jobbingmusician Posts: 20,343 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Intrepid Forum Explorer
    I suspect that what it actually is is a poor cut and paste. The normal wording would be '"Your normal place of work will be at the Company's premises, presently located at .........
    You may be required to work at any other location from time to time, either in the United Kingdom or abroad.....'

    The grammatical construction, as it stands, is so weird that I would query it with them.
    I was a board guide here for many years, but have now resigned. Amicably, but I think it reflects very poorly on MSE that I have not even received an acknowledgement of my resignation! Poor show, MSE.

    This signature was changed on 6.4.22. This is an experiment to see if anyone from MSE picks up on this comment.
  • I suspect that what it actually is is a poor cut and paste. The normal wording would be '"Your normal place of work will be at the Company's premises, presently located at .........
    You may be required to work at any other location from time to time, either in the United Kingdom or abroad.....'

    The grammatical construction, as it stands, is so weird that I would query it with them.

    "From time to time" has a particular legal meaning in contracts. It means "subject to change in the future", basically.

    Examples here:

    https://weagree.com/drafting-principles/6-typical-drafting-habits-and-legalese/6-1-certain-funny-phrases/h-from-time-to-time/
  • ohreally
    ohreally Posts: 7,525 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Far too ambiguous, needs challenged at the time.
    Don’t be a can’t, be a can.
  • ohreally wrote: »
    Far too ambiguous, needs challenged at the time.

    Based on my above post, it isn't ambiguous at all. His main place of work will be at the Company's premises, currently located at x, but if they move to y, it will be there.
  • ohreally
    ohreally Posts: 7,525 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Based on my above post, it isn't ambiguous at all.

    Yes it is. For starters the definition of "reasonably required" needed clarification and agreement and not simply left to an employer to apply as they see fit to the circumstances.
    Don’t be a can’t, be a can.
  • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser Posts: 2,851 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 11 May 2018 at 2:33PM
    ohreally wrote: »
    Yes it is. For starters the definition of "reasonably required" needed clarification and agreement and not simply left to an employer to apply as they see fit to the circumstances.

    That's not part of the mobility clause. That's about occasional work on other sites - that's standard boiler plate. I have never signed a contract that didn't have that in, in pretty much exactly those words.

    A mobility clause is about the company's right to ask them to move permanently. That, if there is one here, is contained in the first part, about their normal place of work. In this case I would say they can ask them to move only if the premises at x no longer exist. They can't ask them to move if x remains open.

    What hangs on this, probably, is whether they are entitled to redundancy if the office closes and they are asked to move.
  • westv
    westv Posts: 6,081 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    I'm currently "in scope" for TUPE.
  • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser Posts: 2,851 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 11 May 2018 at 3:14PM
    westv wrote: »
    I'm currently "in scope" for TUPE.

    Is the premises you currently work in closing?

    Do you think you will be offered a move and not want to?
  • westv
    westv Posts: 6,081 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Is the office you currently work in closing?

    Do you think you will have to move and not want to?

    I'm being TUPEd to another company. My original office isn't closing. The new company has an office close to my current company but I am being asked to move to another office they have around 30 miles outside London. The new company has offered me a travel allowance.

    If I still believe the move is unreasonable am I correct in saying that I should NOT refuse the transfer as that would effectively be a resignation?
    What is the correct procedure follow if my opinion on the move is correct?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards