Re: Contract and redundancy


"tim....." <tims_new_home@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6vb82iFj1osrU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:498fe2da$1_1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"tim....." <tims_new_home@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6v2q26Fhu2hqU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:498bf110$1_1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


That is an opinion of a consultancy who are rarely renowned for
actually being authoratative on anything much being more interested in
making money from disputes (which they do even if they lose). However,
there is a test of reasonableness, but if it is overridden by the
contract terms then much can become reasonable that was not reasonable
in the absence of such a provision, after all the employee agreed to
this provision of his own free will. The first citation pretty well
makes this clear. Ultimately it is up to an Employment Tribunal to
decide if the application of the provision is reasonable or not, and
they more often than not come down on the employer's side.

Really. For a junior employee presented with a "take it or leave it"
contract.

I very much doubt it


Which bit of "Ultimately it is up to an Employment Tribunal to decide if
the application of the provision is reasonable or not" caused you
problems?

None, it was your assertion that they *usually* side with the employer in
contentious cases that I am disputing (and I was taking you comment to be
a general one, rather than just specific to this issue, because you did
seem to have moved to a legal "generalisation"). Note, that if a case
isn't contentious it wouldn't be likely to get to the tribunal, would it?
(Yes I know some parties are bloody minded).


Ordinarily you would be right, but as it happens many of the cases that are
brought are brought by employees who are a bit bloody minded or just see it
as an easy way to get some extra cash. In any case, also as a general
point, where the outcome is not likely to be clearly on the employer's side,
the employer will often settle with the employee before the case gets to the
tribunal - particularly if they have lost a case recently . This is because
any case that an employer looses tends to get published in the media and
doesn't make the company look good.


To take examples: if Tesco employ a shelf stacker on a minimum wage
travelling to work on the bus and then close the store but try to
transfer the stacker to a branch 10 miles away instead of paying
redundancy (citing a clause in the contract), then such an attempt will
undoutedly fail as unreasonable. But Tesco already know this and would
be unlikely to try.

Actually, I don't think asking someone to move to a branch that is a
"different" bus journey away is the slightest bit unreasonable (if the
contract allowed it) and I can assure you that companies like Tesco do do
this, because when I performed such a task (holiday job) they did it to
me.


My examples were general. The fact that Tesco did it to you and you didn't
kick up a fuss doesn't necessarily mean that an ET would agree. However,
these things are decided on their merits and if the alternate location was a
similar, if different, bus ride away then the employer may have a case. But
where the alternate location has no direct public transport link, then their
case may be considerably weaker.

Besides, how many shelf stackers stay in the job long enough to qualify
for redundancy?

It's not clear why you have mentioned this point. It seems to give the
example less force. And yes, when they did it to me the compensation for
refusing would have been zero.


As a general rule, what most people regard as the more menial jobs, tend to
have a much higher 'churn'. Consequently fewer of them get near an ET
unless discrimination is involved.

However, if a company director with a company car were to be transferred
to a branch 350 miles away, the chances are that a tribunal would deem
this to be reasonable. They may even deem it to be reasonable if the
contract is silent on the transfer.

For middling staff, a mobility clause is generally considered reasonable
and even if the move is abroad has been held to be reasonable if the
contract provides for it and the company picks up the expenses (generally
they do).

Most cases brought to an ET are employees who have agreed to mobility
clauses but when the time comes don't want to move. This is why most
come down on the employers' side.

What do you mean by "agreed"? To me, agreement requires specifically
pointing out of the clause. IME (as a graduate engineer) most contracts
just have this as a pro-forma clause in the contract to cover the case
where they decide to relocate to a different building in the same
locality, without payment of "mileage" [1]. Try and negotiate it out and
you'll be told "that's our standard contract, take it or leave it" (and
yes I have tried - though not on this issue), that is NOT agreement.
Further, I would argue that having learned the lesson once, that middly
job T&Cs are generally not negotiable, you don't need to show that you
tried with the current employer.


You are generally responsible for reading a contract before agreeing to it.
There is legislation in place that can make clauses in consumer contracts
unfair if they are unreasonable and have not been negotiated. But that
legislation doesn't apply to employment contracts (and many other types of
contract).

However, when appropriate, none of the companies that I have ever worked
for as an "office based worker" [2] has ever tried to impose a "no
redundancy offer" if they relocate to somewhere miles away, there must be
a reason for this.


A lot depends on the type of company you work for. Many of the older and
larger British based companies were very paternalistic and would seldom do
much to the detriment of their employees, and wouldn't force a situation if
an employee really didn't want to do something - and seldom saw the inside
of an ET. There were also large British companies that didn't give a hoot
for the employees and would shaft them at every opportunity (think GEC under
Lord Weinstock here). American owned operations are somewhere in between
but lean more toward the latter.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Adobe Reader lossage
    ... employment is owned by the employer unless there is a specific clause ... The firm puts a clause in your employment contract saying that your work ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Contributing to the kernel while being employed
    ... There is no such thing as a free lunch, even as an employer. ... A clause of that sort it technically unenforceable. ... in your contract won't change your liability. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Competitor covenant in my contract, HELP REQUIRED
    ... A restraint of trade clause needs to ... Any injunction application on this basis would be laughed out of court ... employment contract. ... The employer would most probably be successful in obtaining ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: job thing, maybe
    ... blanket contract. ... My experience with British and French companies is the exact ... No sane employer would fire people who make good decisions. ... firm with an implied "job for life" contract had ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Code rights for employees (was Re: SCO identifies code?)
    ... studios only own what the artists have granted them at the time. ... > if eBay's contract stipulated that should the author leave eBay, ... If an insurance agent strikes out on his own and takes his ... client base from his previous employer he has deprived that employer of ...
    (Debian-User)