Is this a Mobility Clause?

westv wrote: »

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?

First, I am not a lawyer nor do I have any qualification to talk about this.

From my reading of your contract ""Your normal place of work will be at the Company's premises from time to time, presently located at ........."

..the phrase "from time to time" means the company's premises can move after the signing of the contract and you are still obliged to work there. If that phrase were not there, I think you would have to be treated as being made redundant if there was no longer work for you at the old premises.

As it is there then if the old premises closed then your normal base of work would be transferred to the new premises. But that hasn't happened. What they have done is acquired additional premises. You might have the option of arguing that as the premises named in the contract still operate, if there is no work for you there they have to make you redundant. I honestly couldn't tell you how this would be treated under the circumstances.

Even if there is found to be a mobility clause that enforces your movement, it still has to be reasonable. However it can take quite a lot to be unreasonable. How far away from the old premises is "30 miles outside London"

Another variable is whether there is anyone remaining in your old role at the old place? If not, and maybe even if so, I would say that your best case scenario, if you really don't want to work there, would be redundancy rather than resignation; if they don't have work for you anywhere else then they don't have it.

How long have you been working for the company? Is redundancy worth pursuing rather than just doing the job for a while and looking for another one? If your company say they will dismiss you if you refuse the transfer then they will, whether they are correct or not. You will then have to address it through the courts.

I stress all the above should be taken as uneducated opinion and not relied on.

westv wrote: »

Ok thanks. 30 miles outside London is 30 miles from the current office.

It sounds like that, if redundancy isn't offered, then I might have to go to court.
If I really wouldn't want to do that then my only option is to move to the new office and then seek new employment if needed.

I don't believe 30 miles is going to be regarded as unreasonable. Someone used to these sort of cases could probably tell you very easily.

If you went to court I think you'd be dependent on the idea that your mobility clause only comes into effect if the current office is closed, due to the wording. I wouldn't be massively enthusiastic about that.

steampowered wrote: »

Mobility clauses that broad aren't enforceable anyway.

If the employer wanted to move across a long distance, it would either have to dismiss you (and get sued for unfair dismissal) or make you redundant.

See http://www.blplaw.com/expert-legal-insights/articles/mobility-clause-can-avoid-a-redundancy-situation-but-must-still-be-exercised-fairly.

That says "given their travelling time would have increased by between 20 to 30 hours a week".

4 extra hours a day.

30 miles is a different thing entirely. I wouldn't dismiss it as unenforceable in that case.