Relocation

Denying a discretionary bonus to employees on maternity leave that had been designed to reward an “orderly and effective” relocation between offices was sex discrimination in the case of GUS Home Shopping Limited v Green [2000] UKEAT 994/99/2709, despite the fact that the relocation took place during the maternity leave.

A mobility clause that required an employee to work anywhere in the UK was ruled to be indirectly sex discriminatory in the case of Meade-Hill v British Council [1995] IRLR 478. The Court of Appeal said that the fact that a higher proportion of women than men were secondary earners and would therefore be unable to comply with an employer’s direction to move house did not need to be proved by statistical evidence. (Little has changed in the intervening years. According to ONS data, in 2018 the gender pay gap for full-time workers is entirely In favour of men, for all occupations).

Mobility clauses can also give rise to disability discrimination, in particular the duty to make reasonable adjustments. For a good example, see the successful claim supported by professionals’ union Prospect, Watson v The Civil Aviation Authority, August 2014. In this case, an employment tribunal ruled that Watson’s employer, the CAA, engaged in discrimination arising from disability and breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments by enforcing a contractual mobility clause despite evidence that a significant part of Watson’s job could be done remotely.