Not sure what to do new office attendance policy

Then people need to check that all the terms they have agreed are in the contract. How can it be "deceptive" if it is literally written down? Don't people read their contracts?

There is the legal aspect of things of course, but there is also the longer term future you need to think about. What situation do you want to work towards in 2 or 3 years from now?

In my area (sw development) it's very easy for an employer to freeze out someone over a period of time, no unions here, no public service benefits, etc.

I'm in a similar situation, being expected to attend office going forward, but it's not possible for family reasons. I'm be easily able to get another job, just not with the current salary and benefits where I'm located. Not a nice place to be be! But I'm very used to turmoil in tech!!

It would be unfair if they were assured, in writing separately, that some other term or benefit was included but that wasn't reflected in the contract, which then explicitly excluded all other offerings. That sounds deceptive to me

@Megifer My current arrangements are in my contract, at my previous employer it was in an addendum type thing to my contract that described my place of work, and how many days working from home.

No, I write it into every employment contract I design, and it's always recommended by employment lawyers. And, I've had to rely on it a few times as well so it is very worth having (from an employer perspective).

Of course it is a fair term. Saying "this is the contract" cannot be deemed unfair, surely?

I've no idea how an employee could suggest that they didn't understand it. But, in my experience, employees claim not to understand all sorts of things when it suits them. Rarely gets them far in tribunal though. If they don't understand they can ask before they sign it.

If this is the case, OP, I'd maybe hold off a bit on any conversations. Wait till January and then say you assume it doesn't relate to you. Buy yourself more time if they only START looking into how to get rid of you in January.

Must admit I hadnt come across this in all the contracts I've ever reviewed! Looks like it's maybe more common in commercial law?

The 'reasonableness test' was interesting and I'd wondered if there was something like this underpinning these clauses.

surely in EL for some roles (so those where it wouldn't be reasonably expected for someone to understand it's implications, so they aren't in procurement etc.) it would be unlikely to be considered a fair term as the employee would have had full trust in the email 'addendum'?

Would the onus be on the employee to prove they didn't understand it's meaning?

If it's PWC it isn't coming in until January, so that's not a huge issue.

Can be, but isn't automatically. Many contracts state "all of the terms are those contained in this contract" (known as a whole of contract clause) in which case other agreements made do not form part of the contract.

Can be, but isn't automatically. Many contracts state "all of the terms are those contained in this contract" (known as a whole of contract clause) in which case other agreements made do not form part of the contract.

I'm not angry at all why would I be you've not pissed me off? I was just correcting you.

It doesnt matter whats in the Contract in this instance, the company cannot rely on a variation or mobility clause that you refer to as this would not be considered a minor or non detrimental change.

I wouldn't submit a flexible working request. It just gives them an opportunity to refuse it. The ball is in their court. Explain the situation to your line manager and then allow them to make the next move.

This,you don’t need a flexible working request as you have a contractual agreement to your hours. Dig up the email, send it in to hr, and say these are the grounds on which you employed me, my understanding is a policy change doesn’t override my contracted employment terms. Could you please confirm this to my team? I live 3 hours away, I only took the job on the grounds I come in 1 day a week.

if hr do that thing where they are clueless about the actual law you may need to see an employment lawyer for some back up. And as someone’s said they can renegotiate your contract, but that is work for them and at least would give you time to think.

This and totally unreasonable to expect a 3 hour commute each way.

Something similar happened at my work. I'd speak to your line manager in the first instance. Tell them what you said here. At our place, a load of people were left in this weird position for a long time of being remote but officially they were meant to be in 3 days per week. It was a stand off. Recently, they've been moved to remote contracts. Ultimately, thd business didn't want to loose them so held off any sanctions.

This is my last reply as you appear to be quite angry for reasons I don't understand. I never said an employer has a unilateral right to amend people's mobility for example. I said the Contract is important. I said people's situation such as being a parent, carer or disabled might be factors the employer would have to take into account. I said the OP might benefit from expert advice. Why you feel that's controversial I'm not really sure. I hope you have a good weekend and relax.

Unless I misunderstood and your sentence "many Contracts have a provision.. ." immediately following the reference to ops email/contract saying 1 day a week wasn't actually referring to that and it was a general observation?

Either way, op has it confirmed her location is 1 day a week WFO. And this was the basis of her accepting the contract so would be considered part of her terms (assuming op would have mentioned of they were specific about it being a loose/discretionary arrangement). So they cannot rely on a variation or mobility clause to unilaterally change her terms without consultation.

"The Contract may override an email saying one day a week into office is fine. Many Contracts have a provision to vary workplace/travelling time...."

you suggesting a variation clause may give ops employer the unilateral right to implement this change. It doesn't, for reasons explained.

My background is many years in HR 😊

No I don't think I did, Megifer. I said the Contract was important in determining what an employee could be asked to do and expert advice would help the OP. I'm not too sure why that seems to be quite offensive to you. I don't know what your background is and I'm sure you're well-intentioned but Employment Contracts don't always say only minor changes (and "minor" is subjective) can be made. Most Contracts allow changes unfortunately and a way of pushing back is to get expert help from a union official, experienced union rep, Acas. Or if it comes to it, legal advice (sometimes through legal add-on to Home or Car insurance - I helped a relative get compensation from a rogue employer from Home ins add-on).

If this is PwC (and assuming it is based on the timing of the announcement and your post) you can't leave immediately anyway, due to the length of the notice periods.(assuming you didn't negotiate a shorter one)

I'd find out if you are an exception before doing anything hasty.

OP I hope you get it sorted. The chances are, HR will just tell you not to worry, that one day per week is ok.

I'd assume that as this has come as a surprise, there is not a collective bargaining/agreement involved in this situation.

Would be a shite union if so. And for agreeing to lesser favourable terms.

I agree. Also my Contract was changed years ago so that any amendment agreed by recognised union was deemed part of the employee's Contract. It then became un-necessary for individual employees to agree changes. This is why Contract is very important and expert advice is needed

I’d be curious as to how their contracts were written though. There is a difference with a contract saying ‘right to flexible working’ which then they say is on a case by case discretionary basis and someone who has their schedule written into their contract as an express term.

The emailed agreement forms part of your contract