• This month

  • …at a glance

• Legal updates

  • TUPE could operate across National borders
  • When is it right to bow to customer pressure?
  • The value of a mobility clause

• Case archive

  • July 09
  • June 09
  • May 09
  • April 09
  • March 09
  • January 09
  • November 08
  • July 08
  • June 08
  • April 08
  • March 08
  • February 08

Enquiries

T: +44 (0) 1451 812 225

info@west-writing.com

Immigrant employment status needs care

Home Office vs Evans

EAT/0285/06

Key facts

Evans was one of several immigration officers employed by the Home Office at Waterloo Eurostar terminal who were no longer required there. The Home Office made an offer to move Evans to Heathrow and initially indicated that Evans would be made redundant if the offer was not acceptable to them. When Evans decided not to move, the Home Office changed their mind about redundancy and instead relied on a mobility clause in the contract requiring Evans to move or deem to have resigned. Evans won a case for constructive and unfair dismissal in front of the Tribunal and this case concerned an appeal by the Home Office.

Decision

The EAT found in favour of the Home Office, arguing that the presence of the mobility clause was more material than the initial mistake by the Home Office or any questions about their motives in seeking to avoid a potential redundancy situation.

Our view

A well – drafted mobility clause in any contract is a requirement. They must be used with care, with reasonableness and with regard to other policies and contractual obligations, but making sure they are a part of your contracts of employment is well worth the effort.