Bigpower

As the business I work for grows, things are having to grow up a bit too, where before with a small company there was a lot of "y'know just get on with it" and "you scratch my back... etc" now things have to be done properly and the thorny subject of employment contracts has come up.

Most of it is fair and reasonable and there to protect both parties, however there is a mobility clause which states.

"If the company moves, or your job is moved to another office you are expected to move".

No mention of a limit on distance, no mention of remuneration, just tough shit, move.

My concern comes with the fact that if things take off the owners may sell up to a larger company and retire, leaving me with the option of moving to some horrible city or quitting, with no possibility of redundancy.

So far no-one else I've spoken to has this draconian clause. Some have no mention at all leaving room for negotiation about what is fair and reasonable. Some have a stated package of 25% of yearly salary for moves within the UK, more abroad. Some have a scale which changes by length of employment or distance the office is moving.

So, what have you lot got in your contracts? I'm trying to get an idea of what is fair and reasonable, so that I can go back with an alternative to the above.

Interested in contracts from people in big medium and small companies, and in IT or not.

Cheers all.

Easy buy the company before they decide to sell .

Sorry no other help from me

Citizens advice bureau can help with this, as can someone like Martin Lewis' money advice website. The contract does nt seem right to not cover this. Have you queried its omission?

When I was employed (and when I used to offer people contracts) the relocation thing was almost an obligatory mention. Due to the nature of my businesses some of them were quite likely to mean staff would need to move around and they were compensated accordingly, either through fuel expenses or a promotion/bonus of some kind.

I have never signed or offered a contract that stipulated travelling areas or expenses up front. These were always negotiated by separate agreements but I guess had I been unlucky or unscrupulous I could have been caught out (or caught my staff out). In my mind, happy staff are productive staff and the two things you never muck them around on are money and time off. Historically I expected a lot of people that worked for me, and I paid them well in line with this.

(Businesses include retail, manufacturing, customer services and staff levels varied from 4 people up to 48. My employed experience ranges from financial services, customer service, home office related stuff and manufacturing).

Bearing in mind you've just had a ten % increment and a pat on the back, they are unlikely to want to piss on your chips but it is also unlikely that they will build in a clause to protect you from too much travelling. If you are able to air your concerns with one of the decision makers prior to signing then go for it, but you will always be safer with a contract mate; verbal or otherwise.

With regards to your mobility clause, the only time you'd be able to say it's unreasonable is if you could prove the journey would be too lengthy, difficult or it would impose other problematic factors on your life (child care etc). It also matters not who your employer is, old or new, as the new owner would have to protect and honour your existing arrangements under the TUPE laws of employment.

More details here

If you need more details feel free to give me a shout........from memory twenty miles from your home or current works address is seen as reasonable without further expenses being incurred and charged for.

Just to be clear its not travelling on the job I'm concerned about, its the whole company being sold to someone else and the entire business being relocated to Inverness for instance.

The terms of my contract say I would have to move myself and my family to Inverness with no notice period, and no reimbursement for cost incurred such as new mortgages temporary accommodation etc... or quit, i.e. no redundancy if I choose not to move.

Its this part of the contract I'm concerned is unreasonable.

Maybe this is just how contracts are and I need to lump it, but it seems rather unfair.

I have never heard nor seen any company dictate such an extreme move Maff, without a relocation package attached. They obviously value you so take the opportunity to speak up and put the scenario to them.

I will indeed, just wanted to go in with all the information.

This does seem rather draconian Maff, do you have any union representation within the Company? are you able to individually or collectively negotiate this element, I have never been in this position but perhaps ACAS or similar body can be of assistance here.
Best of luck

There is nothing wrong with striking out the clause and signing the contract with that caveat. I have struck clauses out of employment contracts previously.

Good point! Cheers.

Will talk to them this week... 5 Days of my holiday also seem to have gone walkabouts, although I'm sure that's just a mistake.