employees rights on job relocation??

robskinner said:
From my experience most companies work along the lines of an hours travelling being reasonable
Click to expand...

Thats nice for them, sadly though it isn't up to the company to decide how much travel time is reasonable for the employee as it depends entirely on the employees circumstances.
 
robskinner said:
You can get contracts however that would specifically mention something like "the company can move you place of emply to any other office".
Click to expand...

That's all well and good but you can't sign your statutory rights away.

If I signed a contract stating my empoyer could beat me every Tuesday morning that wouldn't actually mean he could do it!

It's the same with the re-location - even if a contract implies they can move you to a different country (or even a different part of the country) it wouldn't actually have any standing from and employment law viewpoint - an employment tribunal would disregard it at the drop of a hat.

There a test of "reasonableness" for re-location and referring to my documentation and case law it is "1.5 times your existing travel time, unless reasonable relocation expenses are offered". Agian, "reasonable" is upto the ET to decide, not the employer, and no ET would consider moving to Indai as "reasonable", despite what the relocation terms were.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[TW]Fox;22192306 said:
Thats nice for them, sadly though it isn't up to the company to decide how much travel time is reasonable for the employee as it depends entirely on the employees circumstances.
Click to expand...

I am only speaking from experience in that once it goes over that they almost always assume its unreasonable from the start.

I am not saying that its deamed reasonable and you lose your rights.

Ive been involved with quite a few of these and thats just the benchmark starting position. They will almost always offer relocation and travelling allowance for some time (usually phased out)

Its not Completely upto the employee though. I looked at an office move from one side of a town to another and the legal advice was that no one would be able to claim they could not do it. Employees are expected to allow some flexibility. Its not as black and white as you make out.
 
Introduction
Section 141 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 governs the rules on suitable alternative offers of employment in relation to redundancies. This article deals only with alternative employment as a substitute for redundancy. We have separate articles on redundancy and unfair dismissal. This article will be useful reading to all employees who fear they might lose their job through redundancy and all employers who are considering making an employee redundant.

Before redundancy
Before an employee is made redundant, the employer should consider whether there are other jobs available which the employee would be capable of doing. If such suitable employment is available, it should be offered to the employee. If it isn't offered, the employee is likely to be able to make a claim for unfair dismissal.

Alternative job offer
The offer of alternative employment must be made before the current job ends. It can be made in writing or verbally. Of course, a written offer is always preferable.

The job offer must provide the employee with enough details about the new job so that they can assess the differences between their existing job and the new job. The employee must also be offered a trial period in the new job.

Is this job suitable?
Whether an alternative job offered is suitable depends on the terms of the job offered and the employee’s skills, abilities and circumstances. Factors such as pay, status, hours and location are relevant when deciding whether a job is a suitable alternative. The employer does not have to offer a similar position or a position in the same workplace.

Refusal on the grounds that the new job would mean moving house or lead to a significant change in working hours which did not fit with personal circumstances, would be acceptable. Refusal of a similar job without even looking into it would be unacceptable. An employee who refuses a suitable alternative may lose their entitlement to redundancy pay.

Work would normally be regarded as unsuitable if it meant changes in:
•Pay;
•Travelling time;
•Skill requirements;
•Status.


More than one alternative
An employer may offer the employee a number of alternative jobs. Each offer must give sufficient detail, as mentioned above.

Trial period
For each alternative job, the employee is entitled to a trial period of four calendar (not working) weeks, without losing the right to statutory redundancy pay. The trial period will start immediately once the previous job has ended. At any time during the period the employee can decide that the job is unsuitable. However, if an employee unreasonably refuses the alternative job after the trial period, they will not be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.

The employer can also assess the employee during this period to appraise their suitable for the new role. This period can be extended (by written agreement) for retraining. If the employee works beyond the length of time agreed by both the employer and the employee, any redundancy entitlement will be lost because it will be seen as the employee having accepted the new job.

If an employer refuses a trial period the employee can claim unfair dismissal. An employee, who decides not to accept the alternative, before actually starting a new job, does not in principle, forfeit redundancy pay.

Rejecting suitable alternative work
Refusing an offer of suitable alternative work will result in forfeiting redundancy pay - if employees do not respond to an employer’s offer of alternative work, the tribunal will interpret this as an unreasonable refusal which will preclude the right to redundancy pay.
Click to expand...

So... in a nutshell, an alternative position half way across the world would clearly not be considered suitable. Refusal of such a position would not jeopardise entitlement to redundancy. In fact, even refusing a potentially suitable position may not lead to forfeiture of redundancy rights.
 
amigafan2003 said:
That's all well and good but you can't sign your statutory rights away.

If I signed a contract stating my empoyer could beat me every Tuesday morning that wouldn't actually mean he could do it!

It's the same with the re-location - even if a contract implies they can move you to a different country (or even a different part of the country) it wouldn't actually have any standing from and employment law viewpoint - an employment tribunal would disregard it at the drop of a hat.

There a test of "reasonableness" for re-location and referring to my documentation and case law it is "1.5 times your existing travel time, unless reasonable relocation expenses are offered". Agian, "reasonable" is upto the ET to decide, not the employer, and no ET would consider moving to Indai as "reasonable", despite what the relocation terms were.
Click to expand...

What? Thats not signing away statuatory rights, its part of your contract, every single employment contract I have seen has a normal place of work detailed. That normal place of work may be an office, a country, a region, a building, or it may say "any one of our offices" or "anywhere in the world we require you to work". Obviously a burger flipper wouldn't have "anywhere in the world" in his contract. Lots of senior people in multinationals have these types of term, they are paid large salaries and expected to work where they are needed.

For reference I had that term at director level, the company was 100% UK based, when they expanded outside the UK the impact suddenly became a lot more.
 
robskinner said:
What? Thats not signing away statuatory rights, its part of your contract, every single employment contract I have seen has a normal place of work detailed. That normal place of work may be an office, a country, a region, a building, or it may say "any one of our offices" or "anywhere in the world we require you to work". Obviously a burger flipper wouldn't have "anywhere in the world" in his contract. Lots of senior people in multinationals have these types of term, they are paid large salaries and expected to work where they are needed.

For reference I had that term at director level, the company was 100% UK based, when they expanded outside the UK the impact suddenly became a lot more.
Click to expand...

Different rules apply for directors.

For every other employee, I stand by what I said - your contract can say "anywhere in the world" but it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny at an ET (see Daniels post above).

As for "every single contract has it", well, lots of people believe in God as well ;) It doesn't make it right just because it's common.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yup speak to ACAS directly, dont bother with Citizens Advice bureau or local Support places, they only forward you to ACAS :
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1364

When I had my job issues about a year ago I found speaking to my HR(human resources department) pretty much one sided and biased/unfair but you maybe able to find your HR department its perhaps worth a shot, speaking to ACAS in my experience was exactly the same response as in regardless of what your boss does to you in the work place be it fair or unfair its his/her choice and you have to comply.

I had to ask ACAS this twice to make sure I was hearing that right.... even stating I think that is very unfair if your boss is in the wrong that person is still right....

But it is what it is, other suggestions are solicitors which maybe better but at a price no doubt.

Goodluck in your outcome !
 
It is not reasonable to expect an employee to move over 6000 miles to a foreign country, notwithstanding a developing one, as an acceptable alternative to redundancy....therefore the company are obliged to offer a sufficent compensation package that would include the option of redundancy.....if they do not then the employee would have an extremely strong case for constructive unfair dismissal, which would ultimately be more costly to the company. Remember the offer must be suitable alternative work, and it would be very easy to argue such a move is not suitable, let alone reasonable.

Also in respect of a contract stating 'anywhere inthe world', this is not likely to stand up at an Employment Tribunal as being reasonable and just because something is stated in your contract doesn't mean it is reasonable.

In my former employment we had this very issue with relocating a member of staff to the United States to assume a position he held in the UK under a restructuring of our US operation...the original offer was a generous relocation package, no other offer or redundancy was on the table part
Y on the basis of his contractual stipulations on 'relocation to any part of the global group'.....he refused the relocation on the basis that his family was settled in the UK and upon legal advice we were forced to offer a suitable redundancy and compensation package as the legal bods said the stipulation simply wouldn't be regarded as reasonable on anything other than a temporary basis and anything which meant uprooting his family could be successfully argued as unsuitable. We basically didn't have a leg to stand on.
 
Last edited:
amigafan2003 said:
Different rules apply for directors.

For every other employee, I stand by what I said - your contract can say "anywhere in the world" but it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny at an ET.

As for "every single contract has it", well, lots of people believe in God as well ;) It doesn't make it right just because it's common.
Click to expand...

Its best practice for contracts to contain the normal place of work, deviations from etc.

Its not as simple as you make out, i've been involved in this before but for the vast majority of employees its irrelevant anyway they would never be expected or contracted to do this.

The only reason I mentioned it is because its quite possible her contract has in it to be asked to spend some time at other premises. But lets not go there we have no idea.
 
matt d938 said:
My fiance has just been told she is loosing her job as a graphic designer in leeds,

Not heard much of the details as obviously she was upset but apparently they aren offering redundancy because they have offered her the same position in INDIA!!!!!

Surely thats not right at all????? i thought it was like within a 20 mile radius they didnt have to offer redundancy but i think the last time i did geography India is slightly over 20 miles lol

Unfortunatley she isnt in a union, none of them are (they closing whole department)

Where does she go from here?

Thanks

Matt
Click to expand...

What I would say is likely is that she a bit muddled. Having had to make a lot of people redundant previously you realise most of them go into shock almost instantly and hardly take in what you say after that initial comment.

Its quite possible there is no defined timeline yet so they aim to do this, they are probably going to do this, but depending if they do get any people willing to move however unlikely it may speed up or slow down the process.

IF they get no takers it could be 6 months so its more than likely they have said no one will be made redundant now. I agree with everyone else they cannot expect her to move and she is being made redundant in all likelyhood just not yet.
 
robskinner said:
Its best practice for contracts to contain the normal place of work, deviations from etc.

Its not as simple as you make out, i've been involved in this before but for the vast majority of employees its irrelevant anyway they would never be expected or contracted to do this.

The only reason I mentioned it is because its quite possible her contract has in it to be asked to spend some time at other premises. But lets not go there we have no idea.
Click to expand...

The CoA judgement in High Table Limited v Horst & Others is the relevant precedent for this. Basically, whilst a mobility clause existed within the relevant contracts of employment, it was held that an employee’s place of work should be determined primarily by considering the factual circumstances immediately prior to the redundancy or dismissal. In other words, whilst the contract may have stated that the employees could be made to work anywhere else lose their positions, that was not acceptable in law.
 
[TW]Fox;22192306 said:
Thats nice for them, sadly though it isn't up to the company to decide how much travel time is reasonable for the employee as it depends entirely on the employees circumstances.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct, it has to be based on what is reasonable for both parties. If moving to India is unreasonable which it sounds like it is (some might love the idea) then redundancy should be offered.
 
DanielMMS said:
The CoA judgement in High Table Limited v Horst & Others is the relevant precedent for this. Basically, whilst a mobility clause existed within the relevant contracts of employment, it was held that an employee’s place of work should be determined primarily by considering the factual circumstances immediately prior to the redundancy or dismissal. In other words, whilst the contract may have stated that the employees could be made to work anywhere else lose their positions, that was not acceptable in law.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

That's what I've been trying to tell other posters.

For reference, I do have training iro employment law (BTEC level 3 Employment law) but I accept I'm not as eloquent as Daniel - who I suspect to be a solicitor, and trained to a much higher standard than I?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Castiel said:
Indeed...which was exactly what our legal bods told us.....you can put whatever you want in an employment contract and the employee can sign it, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable in Law.
Click to expand...

OMG - two people confirming my posts!

You do know I used to be a TU rep don't you? That automatically means you should dismiss anything I post as I'm not supposed to know what I'm talking about!
 
amigafan2003 said:
OMG - two people confirming my posts!

You do know I used to be a TU rep don't you? That automatically means you should dismiss anything I post as I'm not supposed to know what I'm talking about!
Click to expand...

Aye, I know you were a Rep...if you recall from our previous discussions, I was probably one ofthe few senior managers in the transport industry with a good productive relationship with the RMT...:eek:

I notice since I left it isn't going so well for everyone. (justification of my methods makes me all warm inside)
 
DanielMMS said:
The CoA judgement in High Table Limited v Horst & Others is the relevant precedent for this. Basically, whilst a mobility clause existed within the relevant contracts of employment, it was held that an employee’s place of work should be determined primarily by considering the factual circumstances immediately prior to the redundancy or dismissal. In other words, whilst the contract may have stated that the employees could be made to work anywhere else lose their positions, that was not acceptable in law.
Click to expand...

Yes its what seems to kill the majority of the times when this is attempted to be enacted is that a precedent has already formed making the place of work not in fact what the contract says but in fact a specific place. Ie they had always worked out of a set place despite what their contract said.

I though I had posted this already but looks like I didn't, had meant to.

Only time I think you would struggle in these circumstances is if you were relatively new or had previously spent a lot of time working in a non-discernable location pattern.

Time I saw someone fail in this he couldnt rely on having formed a specific place of work nor had he been there a long time. Also the company quite regularly moved sales patches and others had stayed away from home previously. Bit different to global relocation though I agree ;)
 
Castiel said:
Aye, I know you were a Rep...if you recall from our previous discussions, I was probably one ofthe few senior managers in the transport industry with a good productive relationship with the RMT...:eek:

I notice since I left it isn't going so well for everyone. (justification of my methods makes me all warm inside)
Click to expand...

Haha yeah I know - incidently my Dad was on the NEC of the RMT when he worked for BR as a safety inspector (then Regional Railways - its best time he said, then Railtrack after it was privatised before he had enough and retired).

I resigned in April at our AGM - taking a break for a couple of years - it's incrediby hard work and it was taking way too much of my own time. When I go back I might go for NEC, although our HR head has been rather pally since I resigned mentioning I have more training than most of HR so who knows!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom