Can they relocate me?

[commute]

I work for a company that has 3 offices/sites.

I theoretically work at office A (although haven't been in for 2 years as it's been closed due to covid). I live 20 minutes away from office A.

I work remotely and occasionally do trips to offices B & C when needed. My expenses (fuel - plus hotel if staying overnight at site C) are paid by the company.

We're starting to go back into the office now and I have agreed to do 1-2 days per week at office B. Office B is 40 miles away, on very busy roads. It takes 90 minutes to get there. So a day trip will involve 3 hour commute and an 80 mile round trip.

Manager has suggested that we change my usual place of work to office B, so that the company don't have to pay me fuel expenses or give me time off in lieu for my longer commute. I don't want this and have said that I would not have taken a job 40 miles away, especially as it means a 90 minute commute each way.

Lots of other people work across the three offices but no one else in my team has had this suggested to them.

Am I unreasonable to refuse this move?

It wouldn't be feasible for me to move closer due to kids schools/activities & OH's job (which is 20 miles in the opposite direction).

What does your contract say?

Contract says I'm based at office A but may be required to work at other offices if required.

I don't mind working at other offices, but I want to stay with A as my home office.

You will need to check, but HMRC don't like people being paid expenses for travel to a site for more than a couple of years:

www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim32080

A period of continuous work is defined by Section 339(6) ITEPA 2003 as a period over which the duties of the employment are performed to a significant extent at that place. To apply this rule you should treat duties as performed to a significant extent at any workplace if the employee spends 40% or more of his or her working time at that place. The effect of this rule is illustrated by examples beginning with example EIM32086. The effect of this rule for part-time workers is illustrated by example EIM32092. Breaks in attendance are considered at EIM32105.

The test is whether the employee has spent, or is likely to spend, 40% or more of his or her working time at that particular workplace over a period that lasts, or is likely to last, more than 24 months. Where that is the case the workplace is not a temporary workplace and so it is a permanent workplace. Travel between that place and home will be ordinary commuting and so is not deductible.

*last 2 paragraphs are from the manual (I forgot to put in quotation marks)

Have they permanently closed office A?

Say no if it doesn't suit you. That is reasonable because if you are not getting expenses it will leave you considerably out of pocket.

Does that mean you would get expenses and time off in lieu for the other days you go to office A. That's something I suppose.

Just read your update, speak to your TU or ACAS. Be careful as being too accommodating can lead to you inadvertently changing your contract.

In our organisation that would be on the cusp of what was considered reasonable and if they are effectively moving your role to another site which is not within reasonable travelling distance then you could claim to have been made redundant.

Office A is opening again soon.

There's a particular piece of work at office B they'd like me to be present for.

I'm hoping that the 1-2 days will be initially for a year, then less (1-2 days every 2 weeks) after this, so hopefully shouldn't exceed government limits.

I would be out of pocket financially through fuel costs. It would be a logistical nightmare to get children from wrap around care to activities in the evenings. And an extra 3 hours would leave me exhausted.

I'm going to try to get hold of my union rep tomorrow just to sound them out.

Thanks all.