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.

Surely the fact he can’t drive is irrelevant, he needs to look at what’s the closest he can get to the new place on public transport and how does he do the remainder of the journey, taxi, bike etc.

12 miles is reasonable and it’s not his employers responsibility for him to get himself to work. He needs to embrace adulting and work that out for himself.

Yes and the fact is that 12 miles is not beyond what would be deemed local to the original location.
@RedWingBoots the reason for the provision is usually due to the need to retain staff. It is a perk. In the same category of perks as flexi, toil, health care etc.

He needs to embrace adulting and work that out for himself

Ah of course, because he doesn’t drive he clearly isn’t adulting properly. Because the only way to be an adult is to drive. Never mind the fact he’s been on the property ladder since 18, paid off his mortgage by 40, has worked for his company for ten years working his way up to his current position (including purchasing a property one mile away from his work so he doesn’t need to rely on anyone else for lifts etc). Pulls his weight at home with housework and takes care financially of a child that isn’t his. But because he can’t drive he’s not a proper adult. Gotcha.

Unless he can't drive due a disability or long-term illness in which case an organisation like Access to Work may help fund a taxi, for example.

Well, not being able to drive is having quite an impact on his ability to provide for his family now, isn't it?

There are always two camps on driving. It's a necessary "life skill" or it's a perfectly reasonable life choice and you can manage perfectly well without. Which it is, but then it's up to the non driver to solve the problems not driving presents.

It costs hundreds and hundreds of pounds to learn to drive, then there is the issue of buying and running a car. And Access to Work is quite limited in scope. My husband was unable to drive for 4 years due to a medical condition and got no help.

@ThreeonaHill it’s not having an impact on his ability to provide for his family. I’m quite simply asking if it’s likely he will get a redundancy package. He will find another local job either way, and if he doesn’t find one right away we can afford for him to be out of work for about a year until he would need to start dipping into his savings. He has taken care of me financially for quite some time, paying bills etc to enable me to pay off debts accrued by my abusive exhusband in my name. By the time his work moves, I’ll be debt free.

you seem quite determined to tear down a man for “not providing” because he can’t drive?

it’s not having an impact on his ability to provide for his family. I’m quite simply asking if it’s likely he will get a redundancy package.

OP for this you would have to get legal advice. Oh and make sure he points out he has children.

And you seem overly defensive about it . It's up to him of course, but it is affecting his life choices.

As I said up thread all the legal advice we had (as employers) from our own advisers and from the unions to staff, was that 14 miles was a reasonable move and did not create a redundancy situation, except for one member of staff who only does 2 hours a day. This was not different for staff who don't drive.

He should of course take his own advice.

Some very sanctimonious drivers on here .

12 miles may not be local. We don't know where the OP lives. That's why she - or rather her husband needs to get legal advice.

My 20 miles and 40 miles example was at the extreme end but it is the same principle. The 40 miles was reasonable but the 20 miles wasn't. I know my siblings and friends have turned down jobs that are on a map seem nearby but due to the travel route(s) are not.

So if the OP's husband's company doesn't want to lay on shuttle bus or help get their staff to the new location then they clearly don't want to retain staff and want to make it difficult to get new staff otherwise they wouldn't move to a location where there is no public transport provision.

There is also the issue that some people are just not cut out to be drivers. We don't know the reasons why OP's dh cannot drive and it is not for us to judge.

But the point remains he still can’t get himself 12 miles to work. He doesn’t need to drive, he can do other things, from cycling to public transport to another point and then taxi. Is there sone form of back story why he can’t do that? 12 miles is not a long distance.

You are missing the point. If he was applying for a new job then yes, he would be entirely responsible for getting himself to work. However employment law states that if an employer relocates and the relocation means that is is now "unreasonably" more difficult/expensive to get to work than before then a redundancy situation has arisen. Case law has shown that merely having a mobility clause in an employment contract does not over-ride this.

The OP asked for advice on what is deemed to be unreasonable. Again case law has shown that this depends on circumstance such as availability of public transport, previous childcare arrangements and the ability to drive.

It is possible the company might offer fund travel arrangements short term. He needs to ask if there is any vr on offer.

I do wish people wouldn't post so confidently saying that the law is such and such in black and white when the reality is nearly always much greyer. As others have said, a relocation is quite clearly in law a redundancy situation, the definition is where the requirement for the particular type of work at the place of work has diminished or ceased. The offer of the same job at at alternative/new location may be suitable alternative employment but it's not a given, it's an individual decision in the particular circumstances including the impact on journey times, whether the employee is disabled, whether they have childcare responsibility, whether the employer can offer any flexibility or travel assistance and so on. There's no blanket rule whatsoever that a particular distance is automatically reasonable and above that is unreasonable. A mobility clause can assist employers in moving people around but usually it only really helps where there's been a regular requirement to move around sites rather than a one-off relocation, otherwise it's down to a fact/circumstances specific decision. Others have already mentioned some case law but also look up Abellio vs Musse and others, in that case the relocation was only 6 miles (half what the OP is talking about here) and yet because the public transport was tricky it would have added at least an hour to journey times and so it was ruled an unfair dismissal/redundancy situation. At my place of work I had to advise on a situation where someone was complaining about an office relocation of about half a mile/10 mins walk along an easy/accessible pedestrian route and saying it was unsuitable/she should be made redundant. Sounds ridiculous on the face of it but turns out there were actually a lot of legitimate concerns linked to an at-that-time undiagnosed disability that made travel very difficult for her and about whether the new building would be as suitable as the old. Thankfully we were able to overcome that with some careful consideration and adjustments but if we'd taken the attitude of many on this thread and simply said 'tough, your responsibility to get to work, resign if you don't like it' we'd have been looking at the thick end of an unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim which wouldn't have been very pretty!

OP I suggest your DH talks to ACAS and his trade union representative if he has one to marshall some facts and then go into a meeting with his employer in a spirit of how can we make this work? Is remote working an option at least some days? Are they prepared to support him financially for at least a period of time - could fund the purchase of a bike and/or taxis part of the way? Do the company have any other locations that are more accessible? Would they consider voluntary redundancy?

The OP didn't say where the new location was.

For all we know the office may now be off a motorway slip road so he can't cycle to it.

I've worked in two locations like that. One had shuttle buses from nearby train stations and with the other those without cars had to get taxis from the nearest station. This also meant that on random days when drivers didn't have access to their cars e.g. car in garage, partner borrowing car they had no excuses for not being able to get into work.

Surely there are too many variables at play for just what OP has posted to count? For example the contract, the potential impact of the move overall etc?

Years ago a friend worked in London but was in Zone 2. When they relocated to an office in Zone 1, all employees were provided with some kind of travel allowance to compensate for the difference between travelling to zone 1 for a set period - I think it was a year. This was based on the theory that when accepting the job and the pay, employees made decisions that incorporated the cost and time of travel. The actual physical distance between the two offices was no more than a couple of miles.

I think maybe you’ve missed the point he’s not wanting to not go to the other location due to increased commute costs, he’s saying he can’t do the twelve miles journey,

12 miles is not an unreasonable amount for a company to relocate. I've known companies that have moved lots of staff much further

With the increasing cost of fuel, can he ask one of his colleagues to car share & he pays some towards the fuel ?

What does his colleagues say? I've started with a company who will relocate end of this summer at 15 odd further miles away from the current workplace alone and be double the miles from my home at present, but isn't just the miles, it is the pressure on the then extended work day.

As the driver of an old car on minimum wage and as someone who cannot move or do the role as wfh, I can empathise and that is completely without the 10 years emotional attachment as OPs DP. One of my new colleague was horrified when they googled my home town to their new place with their partner chipping in for good measure, (they live in the town the company is moving to!) I'm going to struggle with the journey.
I just tell myself I'm lucky to have gotten 3 months notice so can put some money away (plus we're doing 12 hours overtime a month which I'm not sure how it is going to go down when/if I have to move further with the company)

My employer have been pretty good, just with the current location when it comes to being late when I encountered a road closed off and the diversion just as bad in my first week and having to accept this to a degree.

My friends worked for a company that relocated
Anyone that lived more than 30 miles away from the new location was able to apply for help with travel expenses for a certain time period. However, there are train & buses to the new location.

I would suggest your DH updates his CV & puts it on LinkedIn & look for local jobs if he doesn't want to travel

Other friends the company relocated 200+ miles away
They were offered redundancy or work at the new location
Those that chose to remain with the company were offered a small relocation package, but not ongoing travel expenses

Hi. If an employer is relocating to an area where it is unreachable by public transport and have already said there is no option available to take me, what are my legal rights?

Some will give transitional payments to cover extra travel cost such as taxi for a limited time. Could anyone liftshare? If it is further away than is “reasonable” you could be made redundant. How long have you worked there ?