Express mobility clauses

Employers often reserve themselves wide powers to require employees to change work location – permanently or temporarily. These terms are known as mobility or relocation clauses. A mobility clause cannot be implied. It must always be express and clear.

Reps need to be very cautious when faced with mobility clauses. Employers have used these clauses to avoid paying redundancy payments. In Home Office v Evans & Laidlaw [2007] EWCA Civ 1089, the Home Office relied successfully on an express mobility clause to argue that two employees who refused to relocate to a different office following a branch closure were dismissed for refusing to obey a lawful order to relocate, rather than for redundancy.

Note that there is no entitlement to be paid to relocate unless the contract says so. However, in United Bank v Akhtar [1989] IRLR 507, a requirement for an employee to relocate from Leeds to Birmingham the following week with no relocation expenses was held to be a breach of contract, because the employee was unable to comply. This case is discussed in more detail in chapter 5. Reps should also consider whether the effect of a mobility or flexibility clause is discriminatory, or in breach of terms protected following a TUPE transfer (see Chapter 8).

Mobility clauses are interpreted narrowly, and any ambiguity will normally be resolved against the employer, even if it means the purpose of the clause is defeated.