My wife's company has been bought and they are moving the company from Hertford to London, they have offered to cover travel but it makes a huge impact on her work life balance -2 hours a day on travel. Is there any alternative or it just a case of tough luck or can she ask for redundancy as they have moved her job and her job in that location no longer exists? She has been there 7 years, guess that makes a difference. Thanks
Without knowing your wife's grade or the type of job she does, will she be getting the train into London, and if so can the time on the train be counted as working hours if she is on a laptop or on calls or working through papers? Might be worth negotiating?
There are guidelines on how much extra commuting time is reasonable in situations such as this. I would think an extra 2 hours a day is pushing it.
I suggest having a word with a friendly solicitor. I would be surprised if your wife couldn't claim redundancy, if that is what she prefers.
My knowledge on this may be a bit out of date, but I am sure someone will be along soon who is up to date on such stuff.
Does her current contract have a mobility clause? Check that first. It used to be that a relocation asa result of a takeover or merger fell under the TUPE regulations and was automatically unfair. This changed in 2014 when a relocation became one of the allowable changes for 'economic, technical or organisational ' reasons allowed by the regs.
However the company will still be subject to the normal legislation around breach of contract, whether the new location is suitable alternative employment etc. What companies often do in this situation is to offer compensation for the additional travel cost, perhaps for a time limited period, or other inducements. Alternatively if the employee rejects the move as unsuitable because it is a substantial change to their employment terms and detrimental, employers offer redundancy.
I would suspect that the aquiring company would offer alternatives to the move, as they should be well aware of their legal position if they try to impose it. Do consult an employment lawyer. All the above is subject to many caveats and conditionalities.
Last edited by Ripley; 6th September 2017 at 21:38. Reason: Edited because I forgot my TUPE law:-(
+2 hours would almost certainly be considered excessive, so provided there is no 'suitable alternative employment' at or much nearer the current workplace, she would be made redundant. The employer could ask (insist) that she works at the new location temporarily - but in both cases should cover any additional cost above what is alrewady being incurred: Even this 'insistence' could be avoided if circumstances dictated - such as child-care.
She would receive 7 weeks redundancy pay (if in her 8th year) and notice, which could be worked or paid depending on the timing of the closure. Generally speaking mobility clauses are unenforceable unless regularly used.
A solicitor at this stage would be a waste of money.
Last edited by afcneal; 7th September 2017 at 14:41.
I'd recommend checking your household insurance to see if you've got a Legal Expenses Insurance add on. If so, give their helpline a call and the advice should be spot on and if it needs referring to a solicitor they will do although most of the helplines have fully trained solicitors staffing them.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
I went through similar in 2009 when my management job was relocated from Bradford to Sheffield.
I agreed to trial the commute but, quite frankly it was a nightmare. I'd been with the company 15 years and the new owners adopted a "its tough" stance.
I spoke with a solicitor and my course of action was to tender my resignation and claim constructive dismissal. Thankfully common sense prevailed and I was offered a favourable redundancy package.
If the door to door journey is no more than one hour (so two hours per day) and incremental travel costs will be reimbursed in some way, then I think the job offer in London seems a reasonable offer of alternative employment.
Disruptive, I know and sympathise. Been through this several years ago and suffered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for the Advice and I guess we will just have to see what happens. The challenge is she current drops the kids off en route to work and picks them up after. As she does not work full days it's a problem. As this would reduce her working day further. They are saying she can start early but they may not be that viable. I can do some pick ups and drop offs but not cover 1/2 of them in a week, she asked about redundancy but got told that was not an option, but she is meeting with her boss next week.
I've had this a couple of times as offices are closed to save the company money. I'm unlucky enough to have something in my contract about the company being able to move me something like 20 miles. The first time it happened they moved me from Twickenham to Slough which I never really objected to but then a few years later they wanted to move me from Slough to Bracknell which I objected to. They cited the clause and I told them it was unfair as slowly they could effectively move me hundreds of miles away. I stuck my ground and eventually after a lot of battling they agreed to make me home based so that on some days I work from home. Suits me as being home based means that I can claim travel where ever I have to go for work whereas previously home to office would be out of my own pocket.
The only advice I can offer is stay your ground else they will walk all over you and somebody will get a well done pat on the back for getting you to roll over.
9 years ago the company I worked for relocated its Head Office 43 miles to the North about a 1 hour journey each way with free parking at the new office the same as the old office. All the staff were offered redundancy or working from home several days a week where practical.
The company paid for my study to be fitted out as an office and the installation of a second phone line. I opted for 3 days at home 2 days in the office variable week by week depending on business/project need.
Therefore I think your wife's company should be offering redundancy to all its employees as an option. Adding 2 hours travel a day to an employee's working day is not reasonable.
Also if the job is being moved to London would it not now attract a higher London rate of pay ?
Plus if it adds 10 extra hours to your wife's working week in that she would lose 10 hours personal time to travel I would be asking for an additional 26.6% of pay based on a 37.5 hour current week.
Raising these matters with the company I think would very quickly result in an offer of redundancy as the company will not want somebody standing up for fairness spreading to the other employees. They would probably offer a compromise legal agreement with a non-disclosure clause on both sides.
Your wife can probably get enhanced redundancy terms and her period of notice paid up with out having to work it.
Really?Originally Posted by BadgerUK
Deleted
Last edited by Analogue; 15th September 2017 at 03:29.
Yes, when I went through this process I also got my 3 months notice paid tax free on top of the redundancy payment. At the time you got the first £30k tax free.
The company also paid the my legal costs for getting the Compromise Agreement reviewed by my solicitor and the negotiations over amendments I wanted. I also got to write my own company reference.
I think this is all fairly standard where the company and employee both want an amicably settlement and reputational protection on both sides.
Well, it isn't fairly standard at all. CAs are complicated and expensive and used where 'legal' dismissal is unlikely and/or where there is a perceived requirement for restrictive covenants - that's not the case here that we know of. Nearly always they are for senior/expensive/expert types also.
The company can decide with impunity whether to have notice worked or to buy it out - it depends entirely on their PoV and the business situation. The £30k tax free still applies, but has no relevance to the OP's question.
I'm sure your situation was as you describe - I've done the same - but it is actually very rare and seldom necessary.....and costly. In this case, dismissal on the grounds of redundancy, provided it's done 'properly' will apply and be legal.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote