Moving house - what happens about nanny

[katharinehepburn]

Question brought up by our nanny as it is happening to a friend of hers and neither of them knows the answer.

There is a reasonable chance that her employers are going to move about 40 miles away. Her contract states that her place of work is their current address or elsewhere suitable for the performance of her duties.

They will still need a nanny in their new town.

So do they have to make the current nanny redundant (she won't want such a commute)? Or not as the post of nanny to the family will still exist?

I thought they would probably have to make her redundant as the post at the current address will no longer exist but then wondered whether the bit about anywhere else suitable would be their get out clause. I know if it was me morally we would still give our nanny redundancy pay but just wondered what should happen legally. She has been with the family for 4 years.

Thanks - sorry for the length.

Interesting clause. I would call ACAS for advice though they may or may not be of much help.

How would it work in other jobs? My mum has had relocation costs paid in the past when working for civil service. Though not sure what would have happened if didn't accept move. Proberley redeployed elsewhere but large organisations can do that, a small one cannot.

The location of job has changed and therefore so has the conditions she accepted the job

I'm assuming nanny doesn't want to work for them once moved so personally I would take that as redundancy

Gov.uk says that it can be redundancy if the employee refuses to move to the new location, if there is not a mobility clause in the contract, or if the move is unreasonable. That's how I read it.

So does the clause in the contract oblige the employee to relocate? Hard to know without knowing the exact wording.

Employment Rights Act 1996 requires that the written statement contains place of work, which can be one specific location or several different places.
That may not be practical for all employers though, in the case of a nanny the nanny may work mostly from the home of their employer but may also be required to go to other residences of the employer from time to time.

In Home Office v Evans and Laidlaw the Court of Appeal said that employers can enforce a mobility clause to avoid redundancies. Cases like this may or may not be relevant, however the summaries such as to which the link goes may be a useful read.

I do not think there is a hard and fast rule that redundancy pay should be made available in this situation. The employer is relocating and the nanny could decide to relocate as well. It may or may not be reasonable for the nanny to commute to the new place of work, so the nanny I feel could refuse to work from the new location due to it not being reasonable for them to do so.

So as I read things, I think that if the employee considers the move to be unreasonable then redundancy could be offered by the employer. Though if they legally have to offer redundancy I really do not know. If they did not, then the employee could take it to employment tribunal as a constructive dismissal case.

Has the employer actually said they will not pay redundancy in the event that the nanny does not want to work from the new location?

My contract states that
'My job will remain the same within a 10mile radius of current address, if move then I can either accept redundancy or the new address'

Could that be in her contract?

^ I have the same clause in one of my contracts, I hadn't considered the implications of this until now. (I considered it to mean grandparents houses or the like..although now I write that it makes no sense either)

40 miles Is, imo unreasonable. I hope they offer her redundancy.

what is the reason for the move? I am wondering if the family is being relocated for work themselves not out of choice if they can negotiate something in THEIR relocation package to include the nanny's redundancy payment? She needs to take more formal advice than MN on her legal position but I would mention it sooner rather than later if the family is being relocated so they can potentially secure the pyament trhough their company.

Thanks folks. Don't know much more unfortunately as we don't know the other family. I do know the nanny would not want to relocate as she has house/family/partner here. I think other family are moving because one of them has a new job but they are public sector, so assuming they have a relocation package like mine, it is fixed and a nanny's redundancy pay would not be something they could claim for.

As I said before I know what should be done morally but whether it has to be done legally seems very unclear!

I would definitely get legal advice. In a former job (not nannying) I was faced with a relocation as a fait accompli and refused redundancy as the employer pointed to a mobility requirement hidden in the very small print in my contract (which I had never even seen, but that's another issue). But I did take legal advice along with colleagues and the advice was that this clause was essentially irrelevant as it would be deemed an unreasonable condition if it were tested in court or words to that effect, and give grounds for unfair dismissal. The employer backed down and paid redundancy.