More people could resign and claim compensation for unfair dismissal if their company is taken over by another firm whose offices are further away following an Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) ruling, an employment law expert has said. The ruling interprets the law governing transfers of staff from one company to another in a …
Surely they mean that people would be better able to claim Constructive Dismissal, not Unfair Dismissal. Unfair Dismissal is if you are dismissed and disagree with the reasons for your dismissal. Constructive Dismissal is where you effectively dismiss yourself because of various reasons. Normally that your employer has made your continuing with them unacceptable for some reason. (Your job has changed, things you've complained about have not been rectified, etc.)
I am lucky in that i walk to work.
This is not by accident, i found a job and then a place nearby.
If my employer moved or wanted me to attend another office (permanently) then i suddenly have a transport cost that did not exist previously.
Given the cost of public transport in London (a few 1000 per year?) then my earnings and overall benefit from that job would be less competitive.
I agree with the tribunal!
There is still a question about the future of the building i work in following a takeover, and there have been a number of dropped comments from the higher ups, such as an extra hours drive isn't an unreasonable commute.
I think an extra hours drive might be a bit of an issue, if you don't happen to drive!
bloody southern softies ;)
1000s to travel in london per year? really? the rest of the country needs cars and they cost a similar amount to buy and run. not everyone lives in a town with decent public transport. for example it takes me 10 mins to get to work in car. 40 mins walk. 90 mins by bus (2 busses, long waits etc)! what the hell!
anyway, i thought there was a 10mile radius factor. meaning that if a company moves offices more than 10 miles away you can ask for transport costs etc. my last company moved 9 miles away from old office (coincidence???) and from taking 5 mins to get to work it took me 30. so, my work day ended up being 50mins longer each day.
It doesn't look as though they're saying the decision was wrong, just that they didn't look at the case in the right way. So back to square one, everybody.
Best instance I ever saw when I was job-hunting was getting a part-time job, in a city 200 miles away, presented as local. If that was the head office, and the job was local, the system didn't seem to be able to cope.
But the experience made me reluctant to trust the government figures. GIGO failure.
Hardly a huge shift in location - Camberwell to Beckenham is only about 7 miles driving (and a train from Herne Hill takes approx 10 minutes). How this involves the M25 is beyond me unless she lives really far away and then the difference between the two locations is really minimal (and probably Beckenham is easier as you're further out.
so if you are hiring..
just state that the place of work can be anywhere in the world... might seem a trivial ruling but for a small business it will suddenly devalue it significantly.
seems like an own goal for English Labour Law.. who would want to buy a company in England with this new risk..
Re : "Work can be anywhere in the world"
I expect tribunals and courts are well experienced in spotting clauses designed to remove legislated protections from employees, discarding them as unfair or uneforceable.
I agree with AC though, it is potentially bad news for business, but then who is the law meant to protect - the slave masters or the slaves ? Guess we all have our own opinions depending on which camp we fall into, whether we want to exploit others or not be exploited ourselves.
"but then who is the law meant to protect"
The lawyers and the government.