Remote Employment contract and company trying to change it

L

Lockup

Registered User
Messages
57
Hi,

Someone I know works for large multinational and her contract is fully remote. They are saying they want everyone back in 5 days a week (most ppl were remote but had standard contract) and are sending out spreadsheets asking what days they are coming in and they changed everyones work location to be the office. Her boss who is not based here is asking when (not if) she will be coming in. HR have not contacted ppl individually.
She doesnt mind going into the office once or even more a week but she doesnt want to give away her remote status.
I am purely looking at it from a legal perspective and looking for advice. I think she should consult with a solicitor but just checking anyhow.
 
If her contract is explicit that her place of work is fully remote, it can’t be amended without her consent.

That said, if she see her longer term future with the company, she also needs to consider the longer term implications of refusing a direct request.

Some negotiated compromise might be the best way to go.
 
Would agree with salvadore here. Also consult solicitor.

But a company can find lots of ways to manage you out if you don't play ball. So a compromise of hybrid at a minimum seems the practical option if wanting to stay with the company imo
 
Would managing you out not be constructive dismissal?

TBH its the principal of the matter also. You go giving a contract saying X and then just changing it to Y which can then be changed to A or B or C. It makes a contract pointless then

she wouldnt see herself there long term and I think she should refuse to sign anything new. Other colleagues changed their contract last year and now they are contractually obligated to go into the office 5 days a week. Alot of them regret it apparently.
 
I would be very surprised if a written contract of employment explicitly stated that an employee's place of work was at home/remote and nowhere else without at least some qualification that they might be required to work elsewhere (office, abroad, on site etc.) in certain circumstances. It would be very foolhardy of an employer to tie themselves down so rigidly. Every contract of employment that I've had over c. 40 years stated that my normal place of work was the relevant offices but that I could be required to work elsewhere and maybe even travel as the needs of the work/role/organisation demanded. So, as mentioned previously by others, the first thing to go here is to check what exactly the contract actually says regarding the employee's place of work.
 
her contract says remote. they are not offering hybrid and even if they were I would advise not to sign anything giving up remote. Very few have remote signed into the contract I would think
 
Number of things to consider here
  • Length of service- she needs 12 months service for a right to constructive dismissal
  • The exact wording in her contract, it may state remote but is there a requirement or a 2reserve the right" type clause which could require her to work from other locations
  • What is the impact on her life and her commuting costs if she has to travel into the office 5 days a week
    • Does that then open up a negotiation on compensation. , "Buying out" a right in an employment contract is quite common
    • What does not going in mean for her career.?
Personally, I'd be getting the CV ready and looking to move on.
 
Company would probably be happy to pay a settlement in WRC to make the point. Max she would get is 2 years salary but very rare to get award that size. So she is not really going to win long term by saying no. Employer holds the real cards as DJT says.
 
Lockup said:
her contract says remote. they are not offering hybrid and even if they were I would advise not to sign anything giving up remote. Very few have remote signed into the contract I would think
Click to expand...

I think as others have advised they need to look at the contract in its entirely. Not fixate on that one part. Usually a contract has some get out clauses about different roles and locations.

They probably haven't realised this person's contract is different. I think I would delay replying until asked directly then say I'd be honouring the contract. If they then want to revise the contract then they are into situation saying the role no longer exists and that's a different argument.

No one has yet won a case at the WRC on WFH.
 
Lockup said:
Would managing you out not be constructive dismissal?
Click to expand...
The trouble with constructive dismissal, as distinct from the broader unfair dismissal, is that the burden of proof rests with the employee.

She would have to provide evidence that the employer’s actions were deliberately aimed at securing her resignation. It’s a high bar to clear.
AlbacoreA said:
No one has yet won a case at the WRC on WFH
Click to expand...
This wouldn’t be the normal WFH scenario that has failed at the WRC, which have been about the adequacy of an employer’s response to a request for WFH. This would be about a failure to observe a previously agreed condition of employment.

The person concerned would seem to be in a strong position technically, although as stated, the impact on the longer term relationship with the employer would also need to be considered.
 
messyleo said:
But a company can find lots of ways to manage you out if you don't play ball.
Click to expand...

This is true but also we're jumping the gun here. If the employee has a contract for remote working, and it's different to the contracts others have, the manager just probably hasn't realised this. The most logical thing the employer will do when it's brought to their attention is work with it. If the employee is otherwise delivering, it would be a lot of hard work for the manager and HR to start constructing a case for dismissal. The manager and/or HR may well have a sense of fair play too - it's not unknown.
 
Remote contracts tend to not be the norm so agree with above, dig out the contract and have a constructive conversation with the manager and HR. Sometimes MNCs have various contract types following acquisitions and changes to policies so you can't necessarily expect them to know the details of legal employment contracts for every employee until they need to in a case like this. I don't think she needs a solicitor.
 
Salvadore said:
This wouldn’t be the normal WFH scenario that has failed at the WRC, which have been about the adequacy of an employer’s response to a request for WFH. This would be about a failure to observe a previously agreed condition of employment.

The person concerned would seem to be in a strong position technically, although as stated, the impact on the longer term relationship with the employer would also need to be considered.
Click to expand...

This is true.

But they've brought back thousands of people to the office, some of whom must have had remote only contacts. I know a few people on such contracts. But I don't know any that were brought back and as you say we've not seen any case at the wrc on a fully remote contract.

As others have said I think it will be about the other conditions in the contract. It may end up being about being redundant rather than something else.

I do know people choosing to do the mega commute and stay over to tick the office day(s) box. As the lesser evil.
 
AlbacoreA said:
As others have said I think it will be about the other conditions in the contract.
Click to expand...
There can be general conditions in a contract along the lines of “the company reserves the right to make changes to your working conditions” etc but these can’t really be relied upon to change something as fundamental as the place of employment. The much more reliable provision, as has been mentioned, is the avoidance of a provision that specifically provides for remote working with no stated requirement to ever work elsewhere.
AlbacoreA said:
It may end up being about being redundant rather than something else.
Click to expand...

It’s an extremely foolish employer that would tell someone they’re facing redundancy if they don’t agree to a significant change in their working conditions. That is nog a legitimate redundancy situation.
 
Salvadore said:
It’s an extremely foolish employer that would tell someone they’re facing redundancy if they don’t agree to a significant change in their working conditions. That is nog a legitimate redundancy situation.
Click to expand...
But if they need to force it through to clear the slate they may take they cost hit of a claim.
 
JoeRoberts said:
But if they need to force it through to clear the slate they may take they cost hit of a claim.
Click to expand...

This is entirely possible, and happens but it's rare enough. The cost of the claim is only half it: there's a lot of work has to happen in the company with the manager and HR to shore up their case as much as possible. If a sham redundancy is exposed, there's all sorts of options for the WRC including re-instatement of the person. This is not the core business of any business making it an education that few wish to acquire. It's also unethical.
 
Lockup said:
Would managing you out not be constructive dismissal?
Click to expand...
Some companies are very good at getting around this. The optics will be made to look totally reasonable, but really they're isolating you, putting you on a PIP to "support" you, and making the work environment completely dehumanising for you.

Plus, the two years or more that it might take to get an outcome (and to evidence, against the company's version, deep pockets and legal team) is a whole pile of stress for the employee. On top of that, your name will be publicly findable in the WRC reports, so may damage your reputation with future employers. I'm not saying this is right, but just a factor to consider.

This is one of those things where you say, pick your battles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top