Wording on employment contract on working place

[Easylittlethrowaway]

My DPs work are relocating, 12 miles away and the new site will not be accessible by public transport. His employment contract states the address of his working place, followed by “or any other site that weather reasonably determine”.

im guessing this is vague enough for them to not have to pay redundancy when they move? He doesn’t drive and won’t be able to get there.

*we not weather!

It all hinges on what is seen as reasonable

Gov.uk says this www.gov.uk/employer-relocation-your-rights

12 miles would not be seen as unreasonable usually but there is this guidance

‘Unreasonable’ could mean refusing to move even though the new location is nearby and the employee could drive or easily take public transport.
However, it may be reasonable to say no if it involves a difficult journey or affects personal matters like children’s education.

12 miles is absolutely not an unreasonable move. Your dh needs to look into alternatives to public transport, lift sharing, cycling, learning to drive, public transport to the old place then cycle from there

Our contracts state we could be expected to work at any site within a 10 mile radius of our contracted location, so 12 miles isn't unreasonable.
Could DH wfh on some days and then rely on public transport, lift shares, cycling etc on the other days?

I assume there's a medical reason why he can't drive, but if not, he can learn - will take a while though.

In general a short move like this would be deemed appropriate.

However, an ex colleague managed to negotiate redundancy for a similar move as she didn't drive and public transport would take excessively long (over 2hrs each way).

Work tried to guilt me into collecting and dropping her off each day. But it would have added 45mins each way to my journey (only a few miles but against traffic twice through the middle of a very busy town because we lived on opposite sides and there was no bypassing the centre).

When I refused due to the impact on childcare for me they then made her redundant.

Redundancy would not arise if the role your DP is doing still exists albeit at the new location. If he doesn’t want to work at the new place he needs to get looking for a new job somewhere and/or negotiating an exit package if that’s available.

the new site will not be accessible by public transport

Years ago I refused to move to a site because of the public transport provision. I later spoke to a (legal) trade union rep. I was told that was reasonable as the company had other sites with better public transport provision especially as a couple of weeks later I accepted a move to another site which was actually further away.

I would suggest instead of asking randoms on the internet as what is reasonable depends on your husband's individual specific situation e.g. he may have a condition that could be considered a disability that prevents him learning to drive, you seek legal advice.

That is not legally correct.

Agree. If the requirements for employees to work at the location where they are employed has reduced, that is a potential redundancy situation regardless of the availability of jobs at another location.

The exact site may not be accessible by public transport, but could he use transport to a point then cycle om or be dropped off by you or a taxi?

12 miles is a very local relocation, so wouldn't be a redundancy situation as his role is still needed. There's no restructure.

Is it a well paid role? He may have to work out the most cost efficient manner of travel, involving you, buses, taxis and bikes. Then review and reapply elsewhere.

Something similar happened with my work, they closed one base and everyone needed to work from the other one which was also about 12 miles apart. One person did resign over it but the others affected ended up negotiating a working from home situation where they only needed to attend the office once a fortnight. It went down like a lead balloon with the staff who were having to go in 50/50 because they were originally based at the still open site but that's what was arranged. Maybe your DP could negotiate something like this?

Does he currently use public transport ? Is there a shuttle bus or lift share to nearest station or bus stop?

I am sorry if there is no public transport (no bus/train/tube) at all it is unreasonable in my view...

Some people can't or won't drive for perfectly good reasons. To assume everyone can just jump into their car is a bit daft and could be discriminatory too (as some people won't be able to drive because of health conditions/disability, because they can't afford to have a car or because they have strong views on the environment).

Unless your company is going to provide a taxi service for those who don't have car/can't drive, which I doubt, some people will have legitimate claim that they can no longer access their workplace.

I would say it is incredibly silly to move a company somewhere where no public transport whatsoever is available.

I also assume it is not in the initial contract that all employees must be able to have access to a car/drive as a condition of employment.

When I see the comments so far I am always amazed at how so many people will support draft behaviour by employers at all cost. Suggesting people take taxis everyday is really nonsensical.

When my husband's company were relocating we were advised that asking him to move to a site 15 miles away with no public transport was unreasonable. He has no driving licence due to epilepsy. Thankfully, the company ended up relocating to a much more easily accessible location so we never had to put this to the test.

@Whitehorsegirl and @Edderkop that's why I was told by the union rep I later spoke to my behaviour was reasonable.

The site they actually wanted me to move to was about 20 miles from where I then lived as the crow flies but due to transport links it would take me 2.5 hours to travel one way. (Even if I had a car and drove it would take me 2 hours.) There as the site I ended up moving to was about 40 miles away but took an hour to travel to simply because it was on a fast train route.

Also you cannot rely on lift sharing indefinitely as people have medical appointments or go on holiday. I do know people who have done them however they:

1. Could use public transport as an alternative, or,


2. Both drove so took it in turns, or,


3. One was learning to drive so it was a short term solution.

@Whitehorsegirl
How you get to work is the employees responsibility.
An employer has already stated in the contract the reasonable working from locations and I would think this covers them.
I struggle to believe that there is no way of getting there and I live as rurally as it comes and known that people cycle parts of routes to be able to access work, use taxis, car pool etc.
As unfortunate as it is, this does not sound discriminatory based on what the op has stated.

Get your dh to talk to ACAS.

Kellogg Brown & Root (UK) Ltd. v (1) Fitton and (2) Ewer showed that employers cannot rely on mobility clauses alone.

The 12 miles in itself would not be seen as unreasonable, but the lack of public transport might deem it so.

@ChoiceMummy

Er no....

When the OP's partner took the job the company was based in a specific locations/locations and of course at the time they made sure they could travel to that location before taking the job. Now the situation has changed without it seems the impact on employees being properly assessed/considered.

And yes it would be discrimination if people who can't use a car because of a health condition/disability are no longer able to do their job because of the relocation. Unless the employer is offering home working as a solution this will affect them disproportionally. It would be the same of this affects negatively parents, likely to be women, who have childcare responsibilities and who end up having to spend two hours commuting and can't pick up their kids from school and again end up losing their jobs because of it.

It sounds like there was no proper consultation or offer of flexible/homeworking to support those who would be really affected by this.

The OP should speak to Acas and a Union rather than just believe that employers can always do whatever they can....

And at no point did the op say that he is not driving due to a health reason or disability.
So my point remains. How he gets to work is his issue.

ChoiceMummy, you are wrong. As part of the relocation, the employer must consider the impact on employees. As already stated, what is reasonable is very much dependent on individual circumstances.

I would speak to a union/ACAS as I'm not sure if it being a relocation is different.

I've just been through similar but due to the pharmacy closings my job roll was effectively redundant. They had to offer a suitable alternative and although I did take the job as I could make it work, a number of colleagues took redundancy due to it being a different location and it meant longer commute (not by much maybe 20 min more) and or they relied on public transport which wasn't reasonable for times. Oh also parking costs were taken into account as it would have effected pay due to not paying previously (didn't really get that one but it worked).

@ChoiceMummy it isn't true that it is solely up to employees to get to work.

If it was then why do so many employers provide shuttle buses and a small minority pay for taxis from stations? It isn't out of the kindness of their hearts.

Btw I had no kids nor a disability when I told my then employer that expecting me to undertake a 2.5 hour journey of 20 miles was unreasonable. I was actually already doing a 30 mile one so an employer can't just argue that it's nearer or around the same distance therefore a relocation is reasonable.

We've just done this. The move was 14 miles and it's not easily done by public transport.

Our HR advisors said (and the unions agreed) that it was a reasonable move for everyone except the cleaner on (close to) minimum wage for 2 hours a day.

We have one person who doesn't drive, but it is considered we've given enough notice for her to learn or make alternative arrangements. We've given staff 4 months' notice.

It's not out of the kindness of their hearts no, its to retain and recruit staff but there's no obligation for them to do it.