Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • twiglet98
    • By twiglet98 3rd Jan 18, 10:33 PM
    • 806Posts
    • 3,807Thanks
    twiglet98
    Relocation brought forward
    • #1
    • 3rd Jan 18, 10:33 PM
    Relocation brought forward 3rd Jan 18 at 10:33 PM
    Some of us are taking redundancy when the business relocates, a month to go until our termination date.

    Today we were told my department will move to the new location next week, earlier than expected, and the leavers are to work there for the remainder of their notice period. Many don't drive (I do), lifts would be provided from the current site to the new one. We work long and unsocial shifts, it will add an hour each way and many times the mileage to what is now a very short commute. Nearly half the department are leaving and new staff are yet to be recruited. Pay and redundancy are the minimum rate.

    The notice letters state we agree to continue until the termination date at the current site. I'm not sure it's reasonable for the employer to expect temporary relocation, although of course it's reasonable for them to request it - but where does it leave anyone who refuses to travel?
Page 1
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 4th Jan 18, 8:09 AM
    • 31,900 Posts
    • 19,121 Thanks
    getmore4less
    • #2
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:09 AM
    • #2
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:09 AM
    Any contract clauses for working elsewhere on a temp basis that cover this decision?

    The starting position is you turn up at the current site on time and expect to be back at that site at finish time, the travel should be on the companies coin/time.

    Might need a compromise but there is a risk they suddenly decide the new location is a suitable alternative and no redundancies.

    For those that have new jobs they could look at counter notice but that does have strict timing that
    • twiglet98
    • By twiglet98 4th Jan 18, 7:12 PM
    • 806 Posts
    • 3,807 Thanks
    twiglet98
    • #3
    • 4th Jan 18, 7:12 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Jan 18, 7:12 PM
    [QUOTE=getmore4less;73658900]Any contract clauses for working elsewhere on a temp basis that cover this decision?

    *No mobility clause in mine nor anyone else's to my knowledge.

    The starting position is you turn up at the current site on time and expect to be back at that site at finish time, the travel should be on the companies coin/time.

    *those with cars are to give lifts to those without, fuel allowance using the term loosely) to be confirmed. Starting an hour late at new site will compromise the likelihood of getting the work finished in time. TBC I think - thanks for confirming travel time should be paid in this situation.

    Might need a compromise but there is a risk they suddenly decide the new location is a suitable alternative and no redundancies.

    *Oh goodness... could they do that when redundancy notices have been handed out with the termination date confirmed? Not all affected staff have signed and returned a copy to the management but all at expecting to leave! Is even legal?

    * I don't think any leavers have new jobs lined up yet - this is a min wage job, not a career. Its flexibility and proximity to home make it tolerable.

    Thank you gm4l, I do appreciate your thoughts on this.

    For those that have new jobs they could look at counter notice but that does have strict timing that[/QUOTE
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 4th Jan 18, 7:32 PM
    • 4,552 Posts
    • 7,619 Thanks
    sangie595
    • #4
    • 4th Jan 18, 7:32 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Jan 18, 7:32 PM
    An hour travel each way? Yes, they could very possibly cancel all redundancies and consider the new location a suitable alternative. Which means the staff would have to go to a tribunal and might not win. it might be minimum redundancy - but it could get a lot less, as in nothing. So you might all need to consider carefully how hardball your employer might play this...
    • twiglet98
    • By twiglet98 5th Jan 18, 1:39 AM
    • 806 Posts
    • 3,807 Thanks
    twiglet98
    • #5
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:39 AM
    • #5
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:39 AM
    Thanks Sangie, I had no idea they could cancel redundancies if they wished.

    I do realise many people commute for far more than an hour, by car or public transport. This is very rural and a horrible drive, we work all day and then late into the evening and the employer always assumed redundancy would be offered. I certainly can't afford the extra fuel and there is no prospect of increased pay. Could agreeing to set up and train newcomers over the next few weeks be taken as implied acceptance of new terms if the existing contract specifies only the current location? The expectation is clearly that we do our normal work and assume replacements will be recruited and trained before we leave!

    Should I - and the others - put in writing before next week that we do not agree to a contracted change of location? Is refusing to work at the new site during this redundancy notice period an action that could jeopardise the redundancy going ahead? I have three weeks' accrued holiday so could ask to take that, I'd assumed it would be paid on leaving. This really puts a different perspective on the sudden move.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 5th Jan 18, 8:07 AM
    • 31,900 Posts
    • 19,121 Thanks
    getmore4less
    • #6
    • 5th Jan 18, 8:07 AM
    • #6
    • 5th Jan 18, 8:07 AM
    I sometimes get over analytical where there is a simple explanation.

    ---------------------
    In these situations it is often about weighing up the options and reasoning behind the decisions.

    From what you have said the main motivation is the relocation of the business, do you understand what is driving that?

    That makes it a redundancy situation, pending any suitable alternatives.
    they seem to have been happy to let people choose(were people offered relocations?)

    for a workforce on min wage where some don't drive and typically choose to do the work because it is local the relocation would not be suitable but the time/cost element would be the main objection to suitability and that seems to be in the range where it could be considered OK if it went to court

    for now it seems that is not what is happening but something to look out for.

    What are the motivation for bringing forward the relocation of the department you are involved with.

    is there any reason the plan has changed,
    could you still do the job at either location or are there things like they are moving equipment this weekend rather than 3 weeks time.

    What was the original plan for recruitment and handover, has there been an issue that they can't recruit at the new location.

    presumably the numbers involves are sufficient to be collective and you have had a consultation period and there are reps/union involved.

    All those effected should act as a group on this and go through the representation as that is what they are there for, this is something IMO that comes under the umbrella of consultation.

    if you understand the why behind the change in plan, it makes it easier to offer compromises that works for both sides.

    eg Initially you all do a bit extra to get the job done and as the recruits come on board the extra workers can reduce the need for those extra hours.

    my main concern at this stage would be what will be on offer if they can't recruit enough people and need people to stay beyond the current termination date.

    one other thing those offering the lifts will need business cover on their insurance as this is transporting themselves and others for business it is not a commute, even if the this is a commute is argued many insurance these days only allows commutes to one place of work and to do more than one requires business cover.

    I suspect the line of work means this is not something people would do normally so all those in the proposed car pool need to check their insurance and as a passenger you want prove the person taking you has appropriate cover.
    • twiglet98
    • By twiglet98 6th Jan 18, 11:01 PM
    • 806 Posts
    • 3,807 Thanks
    twiglet98
    • #7
    • 6th Jan 18, 11:01 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Jan 18, 11:01 PM
    I sometimes get over analytical where there is a simple explanation.
    I appreciate you taking the time to analyse and share your thoughts!

    ---------------------
    In these situations it is often about weighing up the options and reasoning behind the decisions.

    From what you have said the main motivation is the relocation of the business, do you understand what is driving that?

    The business outgrew its current location.

    That makes it a redundancy situation, pending any suitable alternatives.
    they seem to have been happy to let people choose(were people offered relocations?)

    All staff had the option to work at the new location, those living onsite would also be accommodated - there is no 'relocation package' as such.

    for a workforce on min wage where some don't drive and typically choose to do the work because it is local the relocation would not be suitable but the time/cost element would be the main objection to suitability and that seems to be in the range where it could be considered OK if it went to court

    for now it seems that is not what is happening but something to look out for.

    What are the motivation for bringing forward the relocation of the department you are involved with.

    is there any reason the plan has changed,
    could you still do the job at either location or are there things like they are moving equipment this weekend rather than 3 weeks time.

    That is exactly what's happening.

    What was the original plan for recruitment and handover, has there been an issue that they can't recruit at the new location.

    I believe so...

    presumably the numbers involves are sufficient to be collective and you have had a consultation period and there are reps/union involved.

    All those effected should act as a group on this and go through the representation as that is what they are there for, this is something IMO that comes under the umbrella of consultation.

    No consultation/reps as numbers too few, no union

    if you understand the why behind the change in plan, it makes it easier to offer compromises that works for both sides.

    eg Initially you all do a bit extra to get the job done and as the recruits come on board the extra workers can reduce the need for those extra hours.

    my main concern at this stage would be what will be on offer if they can't recruit enough people and need people to stay beyond the current termination date.

    That's worrying us all!

    one other thing those offering the lifts will need business cover on their insurance as this is transporting themselves and others for business it is not a commute, even if the this is a commute is argued many insurance these days only allows commutes to one place of work and to do more than one requires business cover.

    I didn't know that, thank you for the heads-up

    I suspect the line of work means this is not something people would do normally so all those in the proposed car pool need to check their insurance and as a passenger you want prove the person taking you has appropriate cover.
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    I'm sorry for the brief replies to your points, late looking at MSE, but thank you so very much for giving me plenty to ponder. Goodnight!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,512Posts Today

8,687Users online

Martin's Twitter