Mobility clause

Case 3: The facts

Mr Evans and Mr Laidlaw worked for the Home Office as immigration officers at Waterloo International Terminal. Home Office staff are not covered by the collective redundancy provisions of TULRCA, but they have a policy which states that their unions will be consulted in a similar way in the event of redundancy.

The Home Office closed its Waterloo immigration office but did not consult, even though it had previously said that this would be a redundancy situation; instead, it relied on mobility clauses in the employees’ contracts, allowing them to be moved to Heathrow.

The claimants said the Home Office was in breach of contract and they had resigned as a result. They claimed constructive dismissal.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the claim, finding that the redundancy policy was contractual and the failure to apply it was a breach of contract. Although the claimants had waited more than four months before resigning, which would usually signify that they had not resigned as a result of the breach, until then they had been trying to get the Home Office to back down; therefore their claim could proceed.

The EAT added that an employer cannot rely on a mobility clause to avoid a redundancy situation. Having said there was a redundancy situation, the Home Office’s efforts to relocate staff should have taken place under the “reasonable alternative– provisions of redundancy law.

Home Office v Evans and Laidlaw UKEAT/0285/06