Homeworking Contract, asked to become office based in a new location

[lionsleepstonight]

I was originally employed for 7 years at an office based location.
During covid we worked from home, on office contracts.
3 years ago the office was closed and we were moved to Homeworking contracts.
Work have now set up an office over an hour away from the original office and said we must work from it, and our contracts are being updated.
They claim it is a reasonable request.

Do we have any rights to say no and if needs be, be made redundant?

You can argue the point, but I doubt whether you will get anywhere as they can argue for a business need.

You won't be made redundant as your job/position is still there, just that you must do it from the office.

Is the business in trouble? Is this a way of pushing people to leave without going through restructure/redundancies?

Have you tried an Internet search? There's lots of info out there.

How long would your commute be?

Up to an hour at in your own time and at your own expense is deemed reasonable
no doubt there will be a business case supporting this
your best option is to submit a flexible working request

Contact ACAS for advice or join a Union.
There are laws around how contracts can be changed and how they can't, but you need proper advice.

I have but only getting results on people with office contracts being recalled back to the office.

The commute would be 1.5 hours driving. No train.

Are you in a union?

so worst case they can fire and rehire on new contracts. If they do they are shitty employers… I think the new employment rights bill will stop this from happening.

what they should do is a consultation and get your feedback. I’m sure there are some rules about paying mileage (for at least a couple of years) from your current place of work (home) to the new office if it is over a certain distance away.

Sadly even though it’s pants, there are ways they can currently require this. If it goes ahead put a flexible working request in - they have to show a business case why you can’t have the flexibility which would be had if you’ve been at home for some time. I’m not sure how far you’d get though

I would assume they can write what they like on the contract and it will be up to you to sign it or not? I think 90 minutes is probably deemed reasonable.

Yes, it is in trouble, and has plans to reduce it's need for it's current sized workforce.

I imagine someone has done the maths on how much redundancy will cost for hundreds of employees.

If not a redundancy situation could it be classed as constructive dismissal?

I’m pretty sure it would be a redundancy situation. I know a friend had a similar issue and got an employment lawyer involved. I’ll check in with them.

https://www.gov.uk/employer-relocation-your-rights

What does the contract say about mobility, not place of work at the moment but about whether you can be required to work elsewhere. The definition for redundancy can be diminished requirement for work of a particular kind in a location, so if there is no demand for home working by the business it is usually a redundancy but you need to look at the mobility clause alongside the current place of work.

But her job still exists so it’s not redundant. They just want her to work from another location.

I'll dig my contract out. See what it says about mobility.

I had this happen to me. It’s not redundancy. There was a consultation. At the end of the consultation period my job was moved to another town an hour away. I was told I could leave my job or commute. I was in the union who said it was all legal. I left my job and got another. No idea if the union were correct but it was the regional person.

Is there going to be a consultation?
Do they want you in the office every day?

Yes and yes.

Your union were wrong. Section 139 of the employment rights act says

Redundancy.
(1)For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to—
(a)the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease—
(i)to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or
(ii)to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or
(b)the fact that the requirements of that business—
(i)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or
(ii)for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,
have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.

the place where lionsleepstonight carries out her work is her home, and the employer can possibly change that, but if they say we don’t need homeworkers any more then she should probably get a redundancy payment.

Definitely not that simple, as per the link I posted.

I don’t know the in’s and outs but I used to work for one of the major utilities they did this many time centralising small offices to large ones it was challenged many times by a strong union and they never put a stop to it

I’m not legal or union trained but this has happened many times in the company I worked for it’s happened to my friends and they’ve all been told it’s legal

There was probably a mobility clause in the contract then.

I certainly didn’t have a mobility clause. In fact my contract named the town I was based in. I did always wonder if the union was wrong. The manager was a fucking bitch for sure.

Manager basically said sign a new contract or leave

Quite- because if the union is recogniosed and the majority of union members agree it, it's legal. People assert all sorts of rubbish when they don't have a clue about the situation.

OP, listen to OPINIONS, if they help you think things through. Do not believe people though - even lawyers with all the information can get it wrong.