Redundancy question...?

[Gazette]

I am writing on behalf of a neighbour who has just been made redundant from his firm after more than 20 years loyal service.

 

Officially he been told that his job is transferring to a base 200 miles away. Unofficially he has found out that his job duties will be carried out by people lucky enough to be still left at the firm.

 

Is this legal? Any information would be welcome.

[becky2585]

More than likely to be legal I'm afraid. Tribunals very rarely interfere with business decisions like that.

 

Would he want to move to do the role 200 miles away? If so, that should be considered as an alternative to redundancy.

[Gazette]

Moving is not really an option. He has kids in important exam years, partner has job here and there are also family ties. (And there are no guarantees that new post won't be made redundant early next year, when further changes are planned...) Reckon he's stuck between a rock and a hard place!

[Gazette]

What about JSA? Will he qualify for contribution-based JSA straight away, or will he be sanctioned for refusing a job 200 miles away?

[Sidewinder]

Two points. One is that any alternative offer of work which enables the employee to remain in work must be 'reasonable' - and although what is 'reasonable' is a subjective thing and varies from person to person, there is little doubt that it would not be unreasonable for your friend to turn down the alternative role where the distance to either travel or to relocate is so far. From that aspect there would be no sanction when applying for relevant benefits for turning down the job, nor would the employer be able to claim that your friend was ineligible for redundancy as he is turning down a 'suitable' alternative.

 

Does his contract contain any sort of mobility clause? If so, and subject to the terms of it, this might be the only fly in the ointment if it indicates an acceptance that relocation could be expected as a condition of employment.

[Pusillanimous]

 

Does his contract contain any sort of mobility clause? If so, and subject to the terms of it, this might be the only fly in the ointment if it indicates an acceptance that relocation could be expected as a condition of employment.

 

 

Having said that, if the contract does contain a mobility clause, then the employer will be oblige to pay all relocation costs, including rehousing costs, removals and associated costs.

[Gazette]

Many thanks for all your help - I've passed the info along. I asked about the mobility clause and his contract does state that he can be asked to work at any base within the firm....however, the company is not willing to pay the £65 a day it would cost for commuting, nor stump up thousands to rent or buy a new place 200 miles away.