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@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • westv
    • By westv 11th May 18, 1:44 PM
    • 4,620Posts
    • 2,218Thanks
    westv
    Is this a Mobility Clause?
    • #1
    • 11th May 18, 1:44 PM
    Is this a Mobility Clause? 11th May 18 at 1:44 PM
    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."
Page 1
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 11th May 18, 1:48 PM
    • 2,640 Posts
    • 4,180 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • #2
    • 11th May 18, 1:48 PM
    • #2
    • 11th May 18, 1:48 PM
    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.
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 11-05-2018 at 1:50 PM.
    • jobbingmusician
    • By jobbingmusician 11th May 18, 2:03 PM
    • 19,248 Posts
    • 19,757 Thanks
    jobbingmusician
    • #3
    • 11th May 18, 2:03 PM
    • #3
    • 11th May 18, 2:03 PM
    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'm the Board Guide on the Matched Betting; Referrers and Jobseeking & Training boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge posts there. Board guides are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.

    The good folk of the matched betting board are now (I hope!) supporting Macmillan, in memory of Fifigrace. Visit
    https://www.gofundme.com/running-the-leeds-10k-for-macmillan
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 11th May 18, 2:05 PM
    • 2,640 Posts
    • 4,180 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • #4
    • 11th May 18, 2:05 PM
    • #4
    • 11th May 18, 2:05 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by jobbingmusician
    "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
    • By ohreally 11th May 18, 2:06 PM
    • 6,757 Posts
    • 5,288 Thanks
    ohreally
    • #5
    • 11th May 18, 2:06 PM
    • #5
    • 11th May 18, 2:06 PM
    Far too ambiguous, needs challenged at the time.
    Donít be a canít, be a can.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 11th May 18, 2:07 PM
    • 2,640 Posts
    • 4,180 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • #6
    • 11th May 18, 2:07 PM
    • #6
    • 11th May 18, 2:07 PM
    Far too ambiguous, needs challenged at the time.
    Originally posted by ohreally
    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
    • By ohreally 11th May 18, 2:24 PM
    • 6,757 Posts
    • 5,288 Thanks
    ohreally
    • #7
    • 11th May 18, 2:24 PM
    • #7
    • 11th May 18, 2:24 PM
    Based on my above post, it isn't ambiguous at all.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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.
    Donít be a canít, be a can.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 11th May 18, 2:30 PM
    • 2,640 Posts
    • 4,180 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • #8
    • 11th May 18, 2:30 PM
    • #8
    • 11th May 18, 2:30 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by ohreally
    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.
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 11-05-2018 at 2:33 PM.
    • westv
    • By westv 11th May 18, 3:01 PM
    • 4,620 Posts
    • 2,218 Thanks
    westv
    • #9
    • 11th May 18, 3:01 PM
    • #9
    • 11th May 18, 3:01 PM
    I'm currently "in scope" for TUPE.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 11th May 18, 3:12 PM
    • 2,640 Posts
    • 4,180 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    I'm currently "in scope" for TUPE.
    Originally posted by westv
    Is the premises you currently work in closing?

    Do you think you will be offered a move and not want to?
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 11-05-2018 at 3:14 PM.
    • westv
    • By westv 11th May 18, 3:18 PM
    • 4,620 Posts
    • 2,218 Thanks
    westv
    Is the office you currently work in closing?

    Do you think you will have to move and not want to?
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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?
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 11th May 18, 3:53 PM
    • 2,640 Posts
    • 4,180 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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?
    Originally posted by westv
    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.
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 11-05-2018 at 3:56 PM.
    • westv
    • By westv 11th May 18, 5:00 PM
    • 4,620 Posts
    • 2,218 Thanks
    westv
    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.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 11th May 18, 6:44 PM
    • 2,640 Posts
    • 4,180 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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.
    Originally posted by westv
    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
    • By steampowered 11th May 18, 7:44 PM
    • 2,851 Posts
    • 2,824 Thanks
    steampowered
    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.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 11th May 18, 10:16 PM
    • 2,640 Posts
    • 4,180 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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.
    Originally posted by steampowered
    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.
    • westv
    • By westv 11th May 18, 11:07 PM
    • 4,620 Posts
    • 2,218 Thanks
    westv
    Well currently it's:-
    Monday 3 1/2 hours there. 50 mins back
    Tues - Thurs 50 mins there/back
    Friday 50 mins there. 3 1/2 hours back

    New location would be:-
    Monday 5 hours there. 90 mins back
    Tues - Thurs 90 mins there/back
    Friday 90 mins there. 5 hours back

    If I moved my M-F location it would be:-
    5 hours there 5 hours back
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 12th May 18, 8:54 AM
    • 2,851 Posts
    • 2,824 Thanks
    steampowered
    Do you have 2 years' continuous service with that employer?

    If no, they can dismiss you at any time anyway. So either move or take another job.

    If yes, then you have a decision to make. You can go with the new move. Or you can refuse. They may dismiss you, it would then be up to the Tribunal to decide whether that is an unfair dismissal. Or they may make you redundant, in which case a redundancy payment is due.

    In this case it sounds like it is open to argument whether refusing to move would be unreasonable or not.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 12th May 18, 10:29 AM
    • 2,640 Posts
    • 4,180 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Your current arrangements don't seem to make sense (why be so far from the office Mon-Fri?), but they are not really relevant anyway. Where you choose to live or stay is not their problem - only how far the new location is from the old location.

    It seems the current place is 40 minutes from the old one? That's unlikely to be considered unreasonable, in my opinion.

    What steampowered says above sums it up well. It's at best debatable, and hardly worth worrying about unless there are large sums of money involved, which would depend on how long you have been with the company. You are not forthcoming with information like this, which makes it difficult.
    • westv
    • By westv 12th May 18, 11:10 AM
    • 4,620 Posts
    • 2,218 Thanks
    westv
    I've been there around 5 1/2 years.
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

157Posts Today

1,070Users online

Martin's Twitter