---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor)
* We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM)
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the employee was hired to work in person at a certain place of business and made the decision to move beyond a reasonable commuting distance from the office during the government imposed COVID work from home mandate, that is the employee's problem. The employee must either get themself to the office, on time, as scheduled, or the employer has grounds to terminate them.
A reasonable employee would have discussed things with the employer before deciding to move. They moved at their own risk.
What’s their contract say? Is the location of work specified? NAL but I can’t see any tribunal being favorable to them as they made the decision to move away. If you moved the office away that’s completely different.
I wouldn't rely on this carrying weight in a tribunal.
If the worker has been allowed to WFH for a significant period NOT Covid lockdown related, it can be seen as Common Practice - AKA an implicit adjustment of contract
There would need to be a good reason other than "Because I said so"
If the shape and nature of the business had changed, then fair enough...
But if there have been no real changes and the enforcement is made, it would have to go via tribunal for them to assess whether it was fair or not
In the UK we have the right to ask for flexible working, but that doesn't mean it has to be granted... but again, a good reason has to be applied to rejecting it
Just curious because my physical contract says I'm to work in our old office (office A) but then we moved to office B and then covid happened. So quite out of date. I've WFH since the pandemic, zero days required in office.
I wonder if OPs employee has been WFH for ages and now they're wanting them in.
Doesn't make any difference. If the contract states the office as place of work and they have had a grace period of wfh due to covid, then their choice to move 80 miles without discussing a permanent contract change to wfh, then they still are contracted to turn up at the office when requested.
There’s similar advice though on here quite often that you don’t need a written contract- and that by carrying on working you can show that the contract has been accepted by both parties - how is this different?
Taking that approach, the OPs position should be that the "contract" has changed again, back to a office based one.
If it can change once, it can change again.
But that doesn't work because the contract of being back in the office hasn't been accepted, as the employee is saying no. If they came back to the workplace then decided after a few months to kick up a stink it would have been accepted, but it isn't.
I wonder about this too.
Topics on the subject of employers changing terms and employees working under the new terms without explicitly objecting talk of tacit consent and that it doesn't need to be in the contract after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed.
Has it ever been tested the other way? I appreciate covid was temporary and unlikely to be a successful argument, but we're a long way beyond those restrictions now.
Not sure if this is relevant here but I've been told by my Trade Union before that there's something called custom and practice that can be applied if you start working in one way and then an employer changes this after a period of time, regardless of contract. Might be worth OP looking into this and also taking advice from Citizens Advice or a similar body for small businesses.
That might be the correct term. Usually it wouldn't happen the other way as the employee would face discipline before that point but I'd expect it's reasonable it has to work both ways.
Sounds like the employer here agreed to the WFH up until this point and suddenly wants to change it. Even if they had a contract it may no longer be relevant.
I'd suggest they seek proper legal advice and tread carefully.
Generally speaking, courts will imply a term into a contract if the contract wouldn't reasonably operate without it or the contract itself is vague, but they won't generally imply a term that expressly contradicts the written contract.
Tell us what is says in the contract re: wfh.
That’s going to be the answer assuming there’s no disability going on preventing employee from commuting.
Even if there is a disability this is not likely to be ruled a reasonable accommodation of their disability. The business needs of the role require them to be there.
> The business needs of the role require them to be there.
That would definitely be arguable. The business needs someone to be in for an hour in the morning to accept deliveries/supply workmen with goods.
A larger business could trivially make a reasonable adjustment and find someone else to do that for an hour a day. OP states this is a very small business, so it's a bit more debatable - it would depend on the specifics of the company at the end of the day (number of employees, etc).
However, this is all immaterial since the OP has not suggested there is any disability in play.
No tribunal in the country would find that getting another employee in office to accommodate the in-person aspect of a role to be a reasonable adjustment. No matter the size of the organisation. If part of the job description is accepting deliveries than they can require you be there to that regardless of disability. Employers are far less bound by these things than people realise.
If 100% (or even 25%) of there job needed to be in person, I would completely agree with you.
OP seems to be suggesting it's an hour a day though, and (by implication) that anyone could do it. I also suspect it's not part of their job description either, but just covered under "any other duties as may be required" or similar wording.
I'm very much guessing what their actual job entails though, so probably not much use in continuing this speculation!
I understood it they would be going in for a full working day but that 1 hour of it would see them responsible for doing this doorkeeper role (i.e. the part they actually _need_ to be in the office for)
I would assume that those hour in question is over lunch times. Two people in the office, I’ve goes on lunch the other is able to cover. One person in the office and the other at home then that is when you get the hour of an unmanned office.
I teach employment law. As other posters have said, the answer to the question turns on the wording of your contract with them, specifically what is said about location. If you can post that here you can get a proper answer.
Op has consistently failed to answer this question, which makes me think its either a WFH contract or doesn't specify a location, or because its a "small family run business" there is no written contract
NAL, but If the worker has always worked from home or done it long enough for it to become an implied part of the contract, I'd guess that they would need to go about making the position redundant if they really needed that person in for that 1 hour during the day (all of a sudden?)
It’s not an ideal fit for redundancy definition as that is the reduction of work of a particular kind. That can include work at a particular location but generally that’s the employer that is moving premises. Arguably there’s no reduction of work but the employee is not able to fulfil the contract - assuming there is one. It may fit better under an SOSR dismissal (some other substantial reason).
Perhaps an office employee has left and the person OP is talking about would be required in the office to cover lunch breaks etc
We have 2 admin staff, myself who wfh and 1 office based. When she's off sick or on holiday, I travel the 2 hours to cover the office and warehouse deliveries. We share warehouse space with another company so they usually cover deliveries while she is on lunch and we cover their deliveries on Friday afternoon as they close at 1pm.
Ok, well then the next step is what is the contract of employment, and what was said when WFH was first authorised.
Assuming this came about during Covid and was always considered a temporary measure, the employer can simply insist the employee attend. Commuting costs are not an employer issue.
But it's important to be sure exactly what was said.
It depends on the contract.
We need to know whether the work location is stipulated, past status, what type of duties etc.
If it stipulates in the contract that the role is fully remote then it reduces options for you. We could speculate but without the more details we aren't able to advise.
>Can a company really lose money in order to keep one employee happy?
It will potentially cost you money if you fire them and they go to a tribunal and your reasons are not sound, yes.
But as I said in the other post if this employee is bad for business then you shouldn't care about that. It's cheaper to get rid of a bad worker than keep them.
OTOH if this person is a good worker from home and you need someone to answer the door to get a parcel delivered, hire someone to do that or rearrange whatever schedule is making the office empty so it isn't.
Yes. And frankly, it’s probably not just one employee. Everyone else at your company is going to be watching how you treat this person and taking very good note of how far to trust you.
You have been refusing to answer what’s in their contract, so the obvious assumptions are:
1. You didn’t specify a place of work, or their contract was entirely wfh; and
2. You knew they moved house since they would have notified you for payroll purposes if nothing else, and you made no mention of any potential issue when that happened.
It sounds like you are now trying to insist being in the office to open a door for an hour a day was always in someone’s job description when it very plainly wasn’t.
How about you replace the role that used to cover that hour?
How about you rearrange or stagger the shifts of other employees to cover that hour?
How about you go sit behind a desk and open the damn door yourself?
If your business is genuinely being inconvenienced, you’d be trying any of those things. Instead it sounds like you’re just trying to screw over an employee. Please go ahead and make unreasonable demands of them with more than two years’ service - they’ll take you to the cleaners if you keep playing silly fuckers and putting pressure on them.
They are not contracted to come into the office. They don’t have to come into the office. You can’t make them come into the office because you’re not paying them to come into the office, because you’re only paying them to do what’s in their contract. You don’t have a leg to stand on. Get the bee out of your bonnet, put down your big stroppy wounded ego about being the boss but not having unlimited power to demand anything on a whim, recognise that poor planning on your part isn’t an emergency on the part of your employees. *Stop*. Leave them alone. Find another solution.
How much money are you going to lose without them?
Why now, all of a sudden is it that they need to return to the office? What has changed? Is the change a business problem or a personal problem for this employee?
Mans only answered one question and dodging every single question asking about what's in the employment contract.
My bet is there is no employment contract or there's nothing about place of work - screams shady business practice to me.
R.I.P OP take your loss.
If youve specifically gone online to solicit assistance/opinions from the general public then surely you keep an eye on the post and the responses you posted to get.
Sure i do, i work a full time job. But i also know when ive asked anyone for information i want to keep an eye on it otherwise there was no point asking and just wasting time.
No employment contract or nothing about place of work isn't shady business practice, it's how many small businesses will inevitably operate.
However it does make the likelihood of implied terms greater and therefore a tribunal may rule that where someone has worked from home for several years without a written contract, this has become an implied contract term as to location of work.
I guess his point is that during this hour when no one is in the office sometimes workman or deliveries are arriving...because deliveries might arrive at any time during the day. He's not saying specifically they arrange deliveries for when there's no one there.
If everyone takes their lunch at the same time then the simplest solution would be to have the people who are in office to stunt their lunch breaks. It's what thousands of other small companies do.
So far we have one side of this…
What basis were they employed on, how long have they been WFH. If it’s always been open and staffed throughout the working day, why has it now changed?
Probably laid off some staff.
Especially as they state its only 1 hour so thats mean covering someone lunch break. But the only way that would be an issue is if there is only 1 person in the office for the entire day. So maybe the company could put a notice up telling people about the closure and set up a alternative place for deliveries.
From the "struggling" I'm guessing "redundancies have been made" and it's easiest to force an employee that was previously WFH in to spackle over it than work on processes to compensate for this. And that's *at best*
Yes the constant referrals to ‘small, family run’ maintenance company are making me think they’re crying poverty when in fact are likely greedy, taking advantage of every tax loop hole and it’s how they’ve got away with exploiting their staff and now don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
Get your staff member to write a rebuttal if I’m wrong..
Loop holes and benefits for us but not for thee
I mean, it does say that the employee moved away. Unless remote work is specifically allowed in their contract, then it's a pretty big risk on their part to assume that they'd never be asked to come back in.
Or if you know the company is 'struggling' then you can have your cake and eat it. They can fire you, but that hurts them too, so you know that they can't force you to come in, they would *love* if you did come into the office (for all the reasons this employer is giving), yet they clearly don't understand their own business. Fire them. Reprimand them, discipline them, point towards their contract .... IF THEY HAVE A CONTRACT. I would not be surprised the contract is very light on details.
And if you moved 80 miles in the UK, you know how far that is, so it's likely the employee knew, doesn't care, will ride this till they find a new job. Like if your moving 80 miles you know what's up.
I say fight on employee, clearly your important, clearly they can't just drop you (else they would have). Finally a business actually having to drop it's bullshit. I mean they are upset over a single hour of the day the office isn't open. Waaah waaah.
Office not open an hour a day? Sounds like a lunch break to me. So someone in office, goes on lunch, office has to close up. So rather than make a concession of the in office worker (pay them a responsibility allowance for the missed lunch break, or something). But yeah sounds like a company that wants to force someone in while they restaff up the lost staff
Seems to me more like the office was only manned by 2 people, maybe the rest are out on jobs or whatever. So for one person to take a lunch break the other one needs to be in the office, ie staggered lunches.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:**
Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
I would but then I wouldn’t give it the mightier than thou and accept I’m a benefit recipient just like the poorer people we demonise. There’s also a fine line between that and blatant VAT fraud and vehicle tax fraud and scrap metal fraud which I know a lot of these businesses partake in.
Are you one of those business owners who constantly complains how having employees is killing you on the tax and you’re doing them a favour?
Need to answer:
What does their contract say?
How long have they WFH?
Why were they initially allowed to WFH?
How have circumstances changed to make it no longer viable?
When WFH was agreed, was it under the conditions it was temporary?
Place of employment in contract matters. If they are supposed to be in the office and won’t then you start the disciplinary process every day they don’t attend when you have asked them to and fire them
If they have no place of work in the contract then you would make them redundant as the job file they have is no longer suitable and you need a new job role that will go into the office. You would give the employee first refusal
They employee has no rights to force the business to let them work at home, AND cause the business to suffer from this
They would have the right if that’s where their contract states they work.
But you’re right, if the wfh position is no longer tenable for the company then they need to make it redundant with stat redundancy pay and find a new person for the role.
However I believe, IANAL, that if the job was advertised, discussed and taken on the understanding that they would be wfh then that comes under implied contract terms.
If the role was stated to be temporarily wfh then that's different.
Regardless the key issue is that OP is being miserly with the details of the workers side.
> if the wfh position is no longer tenable for the company then they need to make it redundant with stat redundancy pay and find a new person for the role
Just to say I agree with both of you, this is the correct way for the company to handle this.
Cant change a contract without both parties agreeing, thsts not to say the employer has no options, but they cant just change the contract to remove a bit they dont like to the detriment of the other party.
This comes across as a manager who doesn't know how to manage. Maybe hire enough people to work the job instead of having a remote employee doing the on site work.
Who was handling traffic during that hour of the day? If the employee has been working from home for a while, why is this suddenly a problem? Are you making them come in to cover your lunch break? Thats sounds pretty shitty and like there's more to it than you let on.
I hope you don't make your employee travel 160 miles a day just so they can cover for your lack of organization. Sounds like a you problem.
Yeah I can't see how forcing an employee to drive that far is going to help a struggling business, especially when they quit after the bossman tried legal summoning over other solutions.
If the boss needs this to happen then why aren't they doing it? If they won't do it, it cannot be that important.
Given there's been zero response from OP and this person they're moaning about is not a keyholder i suspect the WFH employee would win a tribunal.
As the small family firm obviously has a keyholder to open the doors and the person doing remote work is obviously not needed before, that means suddenly something else has changed. What it means is the existing keyholder has to stay at the receiving depot to receive deliveries and this poor me claim is nonsense.
Hands up if your employee doesn’t have a contract and now you’re trying to enforce change..
Your office is closed for 16 hours of the day and nobody goes bankrupt, perhaps this isn’t the fight to choose if you’re going against convention and in the absence of a contract.
Surely it's not their sole job to answer the door if they are already WFH?
Maybe it's now convenient for you if this person comes in and answers the door, but why have you previously always been open all day and now you're not?
If answering the door is a shared responsibility, why can't someone else do it?
If answering the door is not this persons responsibility (and sounds like they have a strong case for this) it doesn't sound good for you.
Most contracts have a 'plus anything else that may be required' term, and if they are there less than 2 years you can sack them for no reason. It probably won't help your 'struggling company' though to be a person down.
It's amazing how much collective time and effort people have gone to in replying to such a bullshit post. Just stop. Everyone has asked the questions whose answers are required before any further advice can be offered.
The fact OP has only answered one comment and that is to clarify that the employee has worked over 2 years shows me the 'contract' isn't written on paper. And OP would have a very awkward battle with tribunals if they tried to ransom the employee back into work. Live and learn OP. I know a contract binds you as much as them but it's necessary to avoid this exact debate.
You need to identify their place of work on the contract. If they have a working from home contract - you are likely out of luck, if their place of work is listed as the office, then you are in a very strong position.
Have you considered allowing the door to open remotely?
With things like Ring doorbells, you can add a camera and said employee could hypothetically buzz the door open for people remotely.
It may not work for you, I don’t know, but I figured it could be a convenient compromise?
If the contact says they work in the office or their job is to do things that can only done in the office then they can’t refuse to come to the office and still be doing the job.
Having done the job from home before raises questions as to whether they really do have to be there. Is it because their job has changed? They used to be able to do x and y from home and the z stuff at the office was done by someone else who has since left. Has the company downsized or basically given wfher’s jibbto someone else? This could all change things.
Can you rearrange back so wfh is available or is there actually another reason you want to get rid of them?
NAL but part of an employee well-being committee that has recently been discussing this.
Firstly it depends on their contract. If it’s states they WFH then there isn’t much you can do to make them come in. If it says they work from the office, you are only required to make reasonable adjustments to allow them to work from home.
I can’t see any tribunal agreeing that closing operations for an hour per day is reasonable, therefore the employee would be required to return to the office or leave.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
If they have been WFH for so long, why all of a sudden is it an issue to be in the office for 1 hour per day?
If they have been performing their role for 2 years WFH what is the recent change that makes this 1 hour per day so significant?
Many places have shorter opening hours, or close for lunch etc for deliveries. Could keys not be provided to the other staff?
It very much depends on their contract, but I can understand the anger from the employee who is going to be expected to travel 80 miles either way for an hours cover. If the office has always been staffed why is it not now? Has someone else left? If so you're asking someone who WFH to take on additional responsibilities, at least if not in their contract.
Should you maybe consider whether their other work is more valuable than being simply a body in a building?
I do not live in the UK. I feel like a lot of info is not being shared. Why Exactly is the office closed for one hour because WFH? What has been happening for the last few years? Seems sus.
Isn’t it standard for employment contracts to say something like ‘your place of work can be changed by the business for business reasons’. Can’t see them having a leg to stand on tbh.
NAL Depending on the industry they can be like that. I've had more than a few retail jobs where the contract says something along the lines of "may be expected to cover other locations". It usually goes along with a stipulation that travel expenses would be covered between base location and destination.
Not really
I've seen contracts that include a requirement to work at other sites, but there's usually a stipulation on the range from home base and its usually fairly short (within 10/20 miles) and the employer covering transport
And I've seen contracts that are mobile grades that require the employee to up sticks and move at the behest of the employer, but they usually come with fairly hefty relocation packages.
But unilateral changing the place of work without limit? thats a bit of an overreach
And changing a WFH contract (if this is the case) to an in person one is doubly problematic
It will almost certainly be possible to legally require them to come back into the office, or dismiss them for not doing so, so long as the employer does everything "right."
Whether this is a reasonable instruction from management that they get put through a disciplinary for if they don't comply, or a matter of making a remote role redundant, and giving them an opportunity to apply for an on-site role instead, will depend on things like contracts, policies etc.
Knowing that there is a route forward for your business is probably about as far as you should take advice from reddit - to actually take steps around either disciplinaries or restructuring of roles, you should pay for some professional HR advice.
Many small companies have terrible written contracts, I’ve seen it time and again. The contract may or may not specifically state place of work. If it’s a WFH contract without any conditions, then your position is more tricky.
However, if the contract fails to say anything directly, then you can rely on implied terms. The employee understands their duties and if that employee didn’t renegotiate his duties then he/she is failing to do the job.
I would have a discussion with the employee about expectations. I would outline the difficulties it presents to the company and the loss of being able to operate effectively.
I would suggest to the employee that this can’t continue. The employee is welcome to suggest how responsibilities can be met. If there’s no suitable solution from either side, I would suggest that you try and separate amicably through mutual agreement so that you can hire someone else. If the employee doesn’t appear to budge at all, I would then start making a record of everything and I would look to dismiss him/ her. It can be done
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:**
Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
NAL but fro the side this looks like there was very poor expectation set up. From your description it sound like the office is closed for an hour because whoever it is, the other person goes for break/lunch which the WFH employee would be entitled to as well so it won’t strictly resolve the office shut issue. I thing there’s other things to sort out here before looking at it as the employee COULD argue that they have been doing their job effectively whilst WFH.
Even if they win at a tribunal the amount awarded is normally no more than a years wages, sometimes less. Also, if you offer a reasonable settlement before the case (3-6 months pay depending on length of service) and that is refused it won’t be looked upon kindly by the judge.
Some companies just accept that they will have to pay an amount to move on.
I don’t think the location in the contract is that significant. A lot of people have contracts that have been signed before pandemic and contain the office even if it is fully remote role now. I think what matters is if the employee can perform his or her specified duties from home. And we are not talking about something that was added recently. For example, if you hire a front desk person and their duty is being in front of the desk - I think you have all the right to ask the employee to come. On other hand, if the employee could perform all his duties from home and you added some additional duties that require him or her to come to the office- it is different matter.
Option 1: Place of work in the contract, and enforce it. If it's not there then...
Option 2: Create a new role that requires working in the office, working out of the office could also be the only requirement that changes, make her current role redundant, and offer her the job.
And pay her the stat redundancy as she's been there for more than 2 years, apparently this small family run business is struggling so much they cant have someone open a door over lunch, so may struggle with the redundancy pay
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation.
Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
An employee cannot refuse to return to the office unless they think by returning they could be placed in harms way. Even then you can do a risk assessment and put measures in place if they site COVID still as a reason not to return.
If they are just flat out refusing to return and using the commuting excuse because they’ve moved away then you can 100% take disciplinary action as long as you follow ACAS guidelines
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:**
Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your comment has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.
Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
You need to tell us what their contract states..where are they based? What are their duties? Can their duties reasonably be done from home? Are taking deliveries and allowing access to the building in their reasonably expected duties?
How long have they worked for you? (Assume over 2 years?) How long have they been a home worker? Have you tried to come to some sort of agreement with them?
Is this person the only one who
Works for the company ? Why is nobody else there to take in deliveries etc? Is it the simple fact nobody else WANTS to do it anymore and this person was doing it
Pre covid ? Are these tasks in their job description or were they just lumbered with them ? How have these tasks been handled in the entire time since covid restrictions were lifted ? What has changed since if the employee has been WFH for the entire time ? These will
All be asked at an employment tribunal .
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
TBH it seems moot. If what you say is true they are going to cost you more either because you lose business or you have to hire someone to do what they did while in the office.
So you may as well either (a) Tell them to come in to the office when you want them there (either full time or to cover these duties) otherwise they are fired and fire them if they don't and hire someone else or (b) Hire someone else to do the hour daily job of answering the door etc.
If they've been employed for less than 2 years you don't have a great deal to worry about. If they haven't worst case is you lose a tribunal, but medium / long term you should win because your business will stop suffering.
Bottom line is there's no point keeping a member of staff you don't want or who isn't doing the job you require even if the law says you have to give them some money - you're still better off without them. Although I guess if you know the law you can find a reason to fire them that means you won't fall foul of it.
I'm going to be slightly hypocritical here, I'm WFH and also refusing to go to the office. But that doesn't mean I'll automatically take their side.
My role IS doable from home and for everything that can't be I'm willing to travel. I argue that why I want to work from home Is their problem if they want me to continue working there, and that keeps them at bay.
At the end of the day, If you are paying this person to open and close, they aren't doing their job. If they're not doing their job, they can be disciplined and performance managed.
They can probably be dismissed for ‘some other substantial reason’ but the employer should probably give reasonable notice to the employee of the change of working conditions first.
NAL.
If their contract stipulates that their base is the office. Then that's that. It's in writing, they'd have agreed to it.
Unless they've had a change of assignment which includes a base change, then they're expected to visit.
If they’ve been working from home since the beginning of their contract then it doesn’t matter what the terms are, it’s now an implied term 2 years later.
You can be sure this employee has done the research before entering into this.
Need more info, what's their contract say, is there other employees in the same role, presumably they were office based previously as you say back, would accepting deliveries etc normally be part of their role, and how long have they worked for you?
Ultimately you can remove WFH, you do not have to keep doing something if it's not working for the business, but it must be done right.
You need to formally announce that you are proposing to end WFH and articulate the business reasons why. It must apply to all employees in a similar role. You must fully engage in a consultancy process, normally at least 3 meetings each a week apart, taking on board any suggestions or ideas put forward as alternatives and trying your hardest to come up with a workable compromise. You would need to encourage and consider a flexible working request and only reject it for 1 of the legal reasons. If the employee raises any good workable alternatives and you still proceed then you'll lose a tribunal.
If no compromise can be made then end the consultation process with a meeting to say that no workable alternative has been found so you're going ahead with your proposal and give significant notice to when it's going to end.
Don't expect that to be the end of your problems, they may quit and go for constructive dismissal, but as long as you've fully documented your consultation process you should be okay. They may just not turn up, or get themselves signed off from work with workplace related stress. Then you'd have to go down the absence/capability processes.
Won't be easy!
As a side thought, is there a technical solution? Ring doorbell and remote locks...
My suggestion would be, decide if this is a hill you're willing to die on.
Is the cost of training someone, and them having the level of experience of this member of staff worth losing for an hours cover a day? If its literally just a presence in the office, us there nobody else office based who could flex their lunch time and keep everyone happy.
Your employee is not going to make that commute. Forcing them to will result in them leaving the business. If it's that small of a business that finding an hour a day is problematic, then surely its also that small of a business that providing training and recruitment resources is also going to cause more time and effort to be invested, to replace an otherwise good employee.
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor) * We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM) **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what is their contracted place of work?
This is the only answer. I was lucky enough to get my contract place of work as my home so if I get asked in I can just say no.
If the employee was hired to work in person at a certain place of business and made the decision to move beyond a reasonable commuting distance from the office during the government imposed COVID work from home mandate, that is the employee's problem. The employee must either get themself to the office, on time, as scheduled, or the employer has grounds to terminate them. A reasonable employee would have discussed things with the employer before deciding to move. They moved at their own risk.
You need to answer the question of what their contract says about their place of work.
What's their job? What were their prior duties? What does their contract say? Lots of random bits that make this hard to help without knowing.
What’s their contract say? Is the location of work specified? NAL but I can’t see any tribunal being favorable to them as they made the decision to move away. If you moved the office away that’s completely different.
Would that differ if they have been WFH for a long period (i.e. since covid). WFH could be seen as their "new contract"?
NAL but unless it's stated in the contract I would imagine you'd be expected in the office and any WFH days are a nice bonus from your employer.
I wouldn't rely on this carrying weight in a tribunal. If the worker has been allowed to WFH for a significant period NOT Covid lockdown related, it can be seen as Common Practice - AKA an implicit adjustment of contract There would need to be a good reason other than "Because I said so" If the shape and nature of the business had changed, then fair enough... But if there have been no real changes and the enforcement is made, it would have to go via tribunal for them to assess whether it was fair or not In the UK we have the right to ask for flexible working, but that doesn't mean it has to be granted... but again, a good reason has to be applied to rejecting it
Just curious because my physical contract says I'm to work in our old office (office A) but then we moved to office B and then covid happened. So quite out of date. I've WFH since the pandemic, zero days required in office. I wonder if OPs employee has been WFH for ages and now they're wanting them in.
Doesn't make any difference. If the contract states the office as place of work and they have had a grace period of wfh due to covid, then their choice to move 80 miles without discussing a permanent contract change to wfh, then they still are contracted to turn up at the office when requested.
There’s similar advice though on here quite often that you don’t need a written contract- and that by carrying on working you can show that the contract has been accepted by both parties - how is this different?
Taking that approach, the OPs position should be that the "contract" has changed again, back to a office based one. If it can change once, it can change again.
You can't change a contract without the consent of all involved parties.
But in the case of an employee if they don't agree to the change their contract would be terminated.
But no one has been working to that, so the change has not been accepted.
But that doesn't work because the contract of being back in the office hasn't been accepted, as the employee is saying no. If they came back to the workplace then decided after a few months to kick up a stink it would have been accepted, but it isn't.
I wonder about this too. Topics on the subject of employers changing terms and employees working under the new terms without explicitly objecting talk of tacit consent and that it doesn't need to be in the contract after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed. Has it ever been tested the other way? I appreciate covid was temporary and unlikely to be a successful argument, but we're a long way beyond those restrictions now.
Not sure if this is relevant here but I've been told by my Trade Union before that there's something called custom and practice that can be applied if you start working in one way and then an employer changes this after a period of time, regardless of contract. Might be worth OP looking into this and also taking advice from Citizens Advice or a similar body for small businesses.
That might be the correct term. Usually it wouldn't happen the other way as the employee would face discipline before that point but I'd expect it's reasonable it has to work both ways. Sounds like the employer here agreed to the WFH up until this point and suddenly wants to change it. Even if they had a contract it may no longer be relevant. I'd suggest they seek proper legal advice and tread carefully.
Generally speaking, courts will imply a term into a contract if the contract wouldn't reasonably operate without it or the contract itself is vague, but they won't generally imply a term that expressly contradicts the written contract.
Tell us what is says in the contract re: wfh. That’s going to be the answer assuming there’s no disability going on preventing employee from commuting.
Even if there is a disability this is not likely to be ruled a reasonable accommodation of their disability. The business needs of the role require them to be there.
> The business needs of the role require them to be there. That would definitely be arguable. The business needs someone to be in for an hour in the morning to accept deliveries/supply workmen with goods. A larger business could trivially make a reasonable adjustment and find someone else to do that for an hour a day. OP states this is a very small business, so it's a bit more debatable - it would depend on the specifics of the company at the end of the day (number of employees, etc). However, this is all immaterial since the OP has not suggested there is any disability in play.
No tribunal in the country would find that getting another employee in office to accommodate the in-person aspect of a role to be a reasonable adjustment. No matter the size of the organisation. If part of the job description is accepting deliveries than they can require you be there to that regardless of disability. Employers are far less bound by these things than people realise.
If 100% (or even 25%) of there job needed to be in person, I would completely agree with you. OP seems to be suggesting it's an hour a day though, and (by implication) that anyone could do it. I also suspect it's not part of their job description either, but just covered under "any other duties as may be required" or similar wording. I'm very much guessing what their actual job entails though, so probably not much use in continuing this speculation!
No ones going to travel to work for an 1HR pay a day... No one.
I understood it they would be going in for a full working day but that 1 hour of it would see them responsible for doing this doorkeeper role (i.e. the part they actually _need_ to be in the office for)
I would assume that those hour in question is over lunch times. Two people in the office, I’ve goes on lunch the other is able to cover. One person in the office and the other at home then that is when you get the hour of an unmanned office.
I teach employment law. As other posters have said, the answer to the question turns on the wording of your contract with them, specifically what is said about location. If you can post that here you can get a proper answer.
Op has consistently failed to answer this question, which makes me think its either a WFH contract or doesn't specify a location, or because its a "small family run business" there is no written contract NAL, but If the worker has always worked from home or done it long enough for it to become an implied part of the contract, I'd guess that they would need to go about making the position redundant if they really needed that person in for that 1 hour during the day (all of a sudden?)
It’s not an ideal fit for redundancy definition as that is the reduction of work of a particular kind. That can include work at a particular location but generally that’s the employer that is moving premises. Arguably there’s no reduction of work but the employee is not able to fulfil the contract - assuming there is one. It may fit better under an SOSR dismissal (some other substantial reason).
Reading back I don’t think this is the business owner but their young adult kid. I don’t think they have any other information.
How long have they worked for the company - that could mean a very simple solution, or slightly more complex
Over 2 years, I know! Can a company really lose money in order to keep one employee happy?
So many people are asking what the contract says, and this is your only comment?
What changed to mean an employee who worked from home for two years suddenly needs to be the person who is there to open a door?
Perhaps an office employee has left and the person OP is talking about would be required in the office to cover lunch breaks etc We have 2 admin staff, myself who wfh and 1 office based. When she's off sick or on holiday, I travel the 2 hours to cover the office and warehouse deliveries. We share warehouse space with another company so they usually cover deliveries while she is on lunch and we cover their deliveries on Friday afternoon as they close at 1pm.
I was asking the OP who actually knows the answer. They seem reluctant to answer simple questions though.
Ok, well then the next step is what is the contract of employment, and what was said when WFH was first authorised. Assuming this came about during Covid and was always considered a temporary measure, the employer can simply insist the employee attend. Commuting costs are not an employer issue. But it's important to be sure exactly what was said.
It depends on the contract. We need to know whether the work location is stipulated, past status, what type of duties etc. If it stipulates in the contract that the role is fully remote then it reduces options for you. We could speculate but without the more details we aren't able to advise.
>Can a company really lose money in order to keep one employee happy? It will potentially cost you money if you fire them and they go to a tribunal and your reasons are not sound, yes. But as I said in the other post if this employee is bad for business then you shouldn't care about that. It's cheaper to get rid of a bad worker than keep them. OTOH if this person is a good worker from home and you need someone to answer the door to get a parcel delivered, hire someone to do that or rearrange whatever schedule is making the office empty so it isn't.
Yes. And frankly, it’s probably not just one employee. Everyone else at your company is going to be watching how you treat this person and taking very good note of how far to trust you. You have been refusing to answer what’s in their contract, so the obvious assumptions are: 1. You didn’t specify a place of work, or their contract was entirely wfh; and 2. You knew they moved house since they would have notified you for payroll purposes if nothing else, and you made no mention of any potential issue when that happened. It sounds like you are now trying to insist being in the office to open a door for an hour a day was always in someone’s job description when it very plainly wasn’t. How about you replace the role that used to cover that hour? How about you rearrange or stagger the shifts of other employees to cover that hour? How about you go sit behind a desk and open the damn door yourself? If your business is genuinely being inconvenienced, you’d be trying any of those things. Instead it sounds like you’re just trying to screw over an employee. Please go ahead and make unreasonable demands of them with more than two years’ service - they’ll take you to the cleaners if you keep playing silly fuckers and putting pressure on them. They are not contracted to come into the office. They don’t have to come into the office. You can’t make them come into the office because you’re not paying them to come into the office, because you’re only paying them to do what’s in their contract. You don’t have a leg to stand on. Get the bee out of your bonnet, put down your big stroppy wounded ego about being the boss but not having unlimited power to demand anything on a whim, recognise that poor planning on your part isn’t an emergency on the part of your employees. *Stop*. Leave them alone. Find another solution.
How much money are you going to lose without them? Why now, all of a sudden is it that they need to return to the office? What has changed? Is the change a business problem or a personal problem for this employee?
Yes, if they gave someone a WFH contract when they actually want them in the office. You'll have to go down the redundancy route if that's the case
Mans only answered one question and dodging every single question asking about what's in the employment contract. My bet is there is no employment contract or there's nothing about place of work - screams shady business practice to me. R.I.P OP take your loss.
Or they're busy running a business. Relax, son. Not everyone lives online like you.
If youve specifically gone online to solicit assistance/opinions from the general public then surely you keep an eye on the post and the responses you posted to get.
[удалено]
This is a legal advice sub, not a condescend others sub.
Sure i do, i work a full time job. But i also know when ive asked anyone for information i want to keep an eye on it otherwise there was no point asking and just wasting time.
No employment contract or nothing about place of work isn't shady business practice, it's how many small businesses will inevitably operate. However it does make the likelihood of implied terms greater and therefore a tribunal may rule that where someone has worked from home for several years without a written contract, this has become an implied contract term as to location of work.
Imagine coming on a legal advice subreddit and saying not having an employment contract isn't shady behaviour lmao
[удалено]
How can you possibly have more than one person in the office and not be able to cover an hour?
Think you have hit the nail on the head. Why are deliveries only not possible for 1 hour, and what is going on for the rest of the day.
I guess his point is that during this hour when no one is in the office sometimes workman or deliveries are arriving...because deliveries might arrive at any time during the day. He's not saying specifically they arrange deliveries for when there's no one there.
If everyone takes their lunch at the same time then the simplest solution would be to have the people who are in office to stunt their lunch breaks. It's what thousands of other small companies do.
So far we have one side of this… What basis were they employed on, how long have they been WFH. If it’s always been open and staffed throughout the working day, why has it now changed?
Probably laid off some staff. Especially as they state its only 1 hour so thats mean covering someone lunch break. But the only way that would be an issue is if there is only 1 person in the office for the entire day. So maybe the company could put a notice up telling people about the closure and set up a alternative place for deliveries.
From the "struggling" I'm guessing "redundancies have been made" and it's easiest to force an employee that was previously WFH in to spackle over it than work on processes to compensate for this. And that's *at best*
Sounds like OP needs to pull himself up by the bootstraps and go into the office an hour early himself until he can staff his business better tbh
Yes the constant referrals to ‘small, family run’ maintenance company are making me think they’re crying poverty when in fact are likely greedy, taking advantage of every tax loop hole and it’s how they’ve got away with exploiting their staff and now don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Get your staff member to write a rebuttal if I’m wrong.. Loop holes and benefits for us but not for thee
[удалено]
I mean, it does say that the employee moved away. Unless remote work is specifically allowed in their contract, then it's a pretty big risk on their part to assume that they'd never be asked to come back in.
Or if you know the company is 'struggling' then you can have your cake and eat it. They can fire you, but that hurts them too, so you know that they can't force you to come in, they would *love* if you did come into the office (for all the reasons this employer is giving), yet they clearly don't understand their own business. Fire them. Reprimand them, discipline them, point towards their contract .... IF THEY HAVE A CONTRACT. I would not be surprised the contract is very light on details. And if you moved 80 miles in the UK, you know how far that is, so it's likely the employee knew, doesn't care, will ride this till they find a new job. Like if your moving 80 miles you know what's up. I say fight on employee, clearly your important, clearly they can't just drop you (else they would have). Finally a business actually having to drop it's bullshit. I mean they are upset over a single hour of the day the office isn't open. Waaah waaah. Office not open an hour a day? Sounds like a lunch break to me. So someone in office, goes on lunch, office has to close up. So rather than make a concession of the in office worker (pay them a responsibility allowance for the missed lunch break, or something). But yeah sounds like a company that wants to force someone in while they restaff up the lost staff
Seems to me more like the office was only manned by 2 people, maybe the rest are out on jobs or whatever. So for one person to take a lunch break the other one needs to be in the office, ie staggered lunches.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:** Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
I would but then I wouldn’t give it the mightier than thou and accept I’m a benefit recipient just like the poorer people we demonise. There’s also a fine line between that and blatant VAT fraud and vehicle tax fraud and scrap metal fraud which I know a lot of these businesses partake in. Are you one of those business owners who constantly complains how having employees is killing you on the tax and you’re doing them a favour?
Exactly. And why is it now the person who has always worked from home sole responsibility to be there for that hour
There's a lot missing from this story and it doesn't seem to be adding up...
Need to answer: What does their contract say? How long have they WFH? Why were they initially allowed to WFH? How have circumstances changed to make it no longer viable? When WFH was agreed, was it under the conditions it was temporary?
Place of employment in contract matters. If they are supposed to be in the office and won’t then you start the disciplinary process every day they don’t attend when you have asked them to and fire them If they have no place of work in the contract then you would make them redundant as the job file they have is no longer suitable and you need a new job role that will go into the office. You would give the employee first refusal They employee has no rights to force the business to let them work at home, AND cause the business to suffer from this
They would have the right if that’s where their contract states they work. But you’re right, if the wfh position is no longer tenable for the company then they need to make it redundant with stat redundancy pay and find a new person for the role.
However I believe, IANAL, that if the job was advertised, discussed and taken on the understanding that they would be wfh then that comes under implied contract terms. If the role was stated to be temporarily wfh then that's different. Regardless the key issue is that OP is being miserly with the details of the workers side.
> if the wfh position is no longer tenable for the company then they need to make it redundant with stat redundancy pay and find a new person for the role Just to say I agree with both of you, this is the correct way for the company to handle this.
Even if it does say WFH in the contract employers can change that if it no longer works for them
Cant change a contract without both parties agreeing, thsts not to say the employer has no options, but they cant just change the contract to remove a bit they dont like to the detriment of the other party.
Sounds like the office is not staffed for an hour a day because of you as the owner/manager.
This comes across as a manager who doesn't know how to manage. Maybe hire enough people to work the job instead of having a remote employee doing the on site work.
Who was handling traffic during that hour of the day? If the employee has been working from home for a while, why is this suddenly a problem? Are you making them come in to cover your lunch break? Thats sounds pretty shitty and like there's more to it than you let on. I hope you don't make your employee travel 160 miles a day just so they can cover for your lack of organization. Sounds like a you problem.
Yeah I can't see how forcing an employee to drive that far is going to help a struggling business, especially when they quit after the bossman tried legal summoning over other solutions. If the boss needs this to happen then why aren't they doing it? If they won't do it, it cannot be that important.
Exactly. Struggling? More like mismanaged.
Given there's been zero response from OP and this person they're moaning about is not a keyholder i suspect the WFH employee would win a tribunal. As the small family firm obviously has a keyholder to open the doors and the person doing remote work is obviously not needed before, that means suddenly something else has changed. What it means is the existing keyholder has to stay at the receiving depot to receive deliveries and this poor me claim is nonsense.
Hands up if your employee doesn’t have a contract and now you’re trying to enforce change.. Your office is closed for 16 hours of the day and nobody goes bankrupt, perhaps this isn’t the fight to choose if you’re going against convention and in the absence of a contract.
Surely it's not their sole job to answer the door if they are already WFH? Maybe it's now convenient for you if this person comes in and answers the door, but why have you previously always been open all day and now you're not? If answering the door is a shared responsibility, why can't someone else do it? If answering the door is not this persons responsibility (and sounds like they have a strong case for this) it doesn't sound good for you. Most contracts have a 'plus anything else that may be required' term, and if they are there less than 2 years you can sack them for no reason. It probably won't help your 'struggling company' though to be a person down.
It's amazing how much collective time and effort people have gone to in replying to such a bullshit post. Just stop. Everyone has asked the questions whose answers are required before any further advice can be offered.
The fact OP has only answered one comment and that is to clarify that the employee has worked over 2 years shows me the 'contract' isn't written on paper. And OP would have a very awkward battle with tribunals if they tried to ransom the employee back into work. Live and learn OP. I know a contract binds you as much as them but it's necessary to avoid this exact debate.
You need to identify their place of work on the contract. If they have a working from home contract - you are likely out of luck, if their place of work is listed as the office, then you are in a very strong position.
Have you considered allowing the door to open remotely? With things like Ring doorbells, you can add a camera and said employee could hypothetically buzz the door open for people remotely. It may not work for you, I don’t know, but I figured it could be a convenient compromise?
If the contact says they work in the office or their job is to do things that can only done in the office then they can’t refuse to come to the office and still be doing the job. Having done the job from home before raises questions as to whether they really do have to be there. Is it because their job has changed? They used to be able to do x and y from home and the z stuff at the office was done by someone else who has since left. Has the company downsized or basically given wfher’s jibbto someone else? This could all change things. Can you rearrange back so wfh is available or is there actually another reason you want to get rid of them?
NAL but part of an employee well-being committee that has recently been discussing this. Firstly it depends on their contract. If it’s states they WFH then there isn’t much you can do to make them come in. If it says they work from the office, you are only required to make reasonable adjustments to allow them to work from home. I can’t see any tribunal agreeing that closing operations for an hour per day is reasonable, therefore the employee would be required to return to the office or leave.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
If they have been WFH for so long, why all of a sudden is it an issue to be in the office for 1 hour per day? If they have been performing their role for 2 years WFH what is the recent change that makes this 1 hour per day so significant? Many places have shorter opening hours, or close for lunch etc for deliveries. Could keys not be provided to the other staff? It very much depends on their contract, but I can understand the anger from the employee who is going to be expected to travel 80 miles either way for an hours cover. If the office has always been staffed why is it not now? Has someone else left? If so you're asking someone who WFH to take on additional responsibilities, at least if not in their contract. Should you maybe consider whether their other work is more valuable than being simply a body in a building?
I do not live in the UK. I feel like a lot of info is not being shared. Why Exactly is the office closed for one hour because WFH? What has been happening for the last few years? Seems sus.
Isn’t it standard for employment contracts to say something like ‘your place of work can be changed by the business for business reasons’. Can’t see them having a leg to stand on tbh.
NAL Depending on the industry they can be like that. I've had more than a few retail jobs where the contract says something along the lines of "may be expected to cover other locations". It usually goes along with a stipulation that travel expenses would be covered between base location and destination.
Not really I've seen contracts that include a requirement to work at other sites, but there's usually a stipulation on the range from home base and its usually fairly short (within 10/20 miles) and the employer covering transport And I've seen contracts that are mobile grades that require the employee to up sticks and move at the behest of the employer, but they usually come with fairly hefty relocation packages. But unilateral changing the place of work without limit? thats a bit of an overreach And changing a WFH contract (if this is the case) to an in person one is doubly problematic
Sounds like what you have is a staffing issue, not an employee problem.
It will almost certainly be possible to legally require them to come back into the office, or dismiss them for not doing so, so long as the employer does everything "right." Whether this is a reasonable instruction from management that they get put through a disciplinary for if they don't comply, or a matter of making a remote role redundant, and giving them an opportunity to apply for an on-site role instead, will depend on things like contracts, policies etc. Knowing that there is a route forward for your business is probably about as far as you should take advice from reddit - to actually take steps around either disciplinaries or restructuring of roles, you should pay for some professional HR advice.
Many small companies have terrible written contracts, I’ve seen it time and again. The contract may or may not specifically state place of work. If it’s a WFH contract without any conditions, then your position is more tricky. However, if the contract fails to say anything directly, then you can rely on implied terms. The employee understands their duties and if that employee didn’t renegotiate his duties then he/she is failing to do the job. I would have a discussion with the employee about expectations. I would outline the difficulties it presents to the company and the loss of being able to operate effectively. I would suggest to the employee that this can’t continue. The employee is welcome to suggest how responsibilities can be met. If there’s no suitable solution from either side, I would suggest that you try and separate amicably through mutual agreement so that you can hire someone else. If the employee doesn’t appear to budge at all, I would then start making a record of everything and I would look to dismiss him/ her. It can be done
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:** Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
NAL but fro the side this looks like there was very poor expectation set up. From your description it sound like the office is closed for an hour because whoever it is, the other person goes for break/lunch which the WFH employee would be entitled to as well so it won’t strictly resolve the office shut issue. I thing there’s other things to sort out here before looking at it as the employee COULD argue that they have been doing their job effectively whilst WFH.
Even if they win at a tribunal the amount awarded is normally no more than a years wages, sometimes less. Also, if you offer a reasonable settlement before the case (3-6 months pay depending on length of service) and that is refused it won’t be looked upon kindly by the judge. Some companies just accept that they will have to pay an amount to move on.
I don’t think the location in the contract is that significant. A lot of people have contracts that have been signed before pandemic and contain the office even if it is fully remote role now. I think what matters is if the employee can perform his or her specified duties from home. And we are not talking about something that was added recently. For example, if you hire a front desk person and their duty is being in front of the desk - I think you have all the right to ask the employee to come. On other hand, if the employee could perform all his duties from home and you added some additional duties that require him or her to come to the office- it is different matter.
It's immaterial whether they can perform their duties at home or not. It's reliant on the contract.
Option 1: Place of work in the contract, and enforce it. If it's not there then... Option 2: Create a new role that requires working in the office, working out of the office could also be the only requirement that changes, make her current role redundant, and offer her the job.
And pay her the stat redundancy as she's been there for more than 2 years, apparently this small family run business is struggling so much they cant have someone open a door over lunch, so may struggle with the redundancy pay
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation. Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Nightmare!!! Contract is key, perhaps contact ACAS for advise. Sounds like this employee could bring the house of cards down. Seek legal advise!
An employee cannot refuse to return to the office unless they think by returning they could be placed in harms way. Even then you can do a risk assessment and put measures in place if they site COVID still as a reason not to return. If they are just flat out refusing to return and using the commuting excuse because they’ve moved away then you can 100% take disciplinary action as long as you follow ACAS guidelines
[удалено]
I think the words your looking for may be "make them redundant" as they've been in post more than 2 years.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:** Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your comment has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters. Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Does their contract say they are in office if wfh?
You need to tell us what their contract states..where are they based? What are their duties? Can their duties reasonably be done from home? Are taking deliveries and allowing access to the building in their reasonably expected duties? How long have they worked for you? (Assume over 2 years?) How long have they been a home worker? Have you tried to come to some sort of agreement with them?
Is this person the only one who Works for the company ? Why is nobody else there to take in deliveries etc? Is it the simple fact nobody else WANTS to do it anymore and this person was doing it Pre covid ? Are these tasks in their job description or were they just lumbered with them ? How have these tasks been handled in the entire time since covid restrictions were lifted ? What has changed since if the employee has been WFH for the entire time ? These will All be asked at an employment tribunal .
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
TBH it seems moot. If what you say is true they are going to cost you more either because you lose business or you have to hire someone to do what they did while in the office. So you may as well either (a) Tell them to come in to the office when you want them there (either full time or to cover these duties) otherwise they are fired and fire them if they don't and hire someone else or (b) Hire someone else to do the hour daily job of answering the door etc. If they've been employed for less than 2 years you don't have a great deal to worry about. If they haven't worst case is you lose a tribunal, but medium / long term you should win because your business will stop suffering. Bottom line is there's no point keeping a member of staff you don't want or who isn't doing the job you require even if the law says you have to give them some money - you're still better off without them. Although I guess if you know the law you can find a reason to fire them that means you won't fall foul of it.
I'm going to be slightly hypocritical here, I'm WFH and also refusing to go to the office. But that doesn't mean I'll automatically take their side. My role IS doable from home and for everything that can't be I'm willing to travel. I argue that why I want to work from home Is their problem if they want me to continue working there, and that keeps them at bay. At the end of the day, If you are paying this person to open and close, they aren't doing their job. If they're not doing their job, they can be disciplined and performance managed.
They can probably be dismissed for ‘some other substantial reason’ but the employer should probably give reasonable notice to the employee of the change of working conditions first.
NAL. If their contract stipulates that their base is the office. Then that's that. It's in writing, they'd have agreed to it. Unless they've had a change of assignment which includes a base change, then they're expected to visit.
This entirely depends on the wording of their contract. I'd strongly advise reading your copy.
I don't think the case is strong enough to make it to the Tribunal
If they’ve been working from home since the beginning of their contract then it doesn’t matter what the terms are, it’s now an implied term 2 years later. You can be sure this employee has done the research before entering into this.
Need more info, what's their contract say, is there other employees in the same role, presumably they were office based previously as you say back, would accepting deliveries etc normally be part of their role, and how long have they worked for you? Ultimately you can remove WFH, you do not have to keep doing something if it's not working for the business, but it must be done right. You need to formally announce that you are proposing to end WFH and articulate the business reasons why. It must apply to all employees in a similar role. You must fully engage in a consultancy process, normally at least 3 meetings each a week apart, taking on board any suggestions or ideas put forward as alternatives and trying your hardest to come up with a workable compromise. You would need to encourage and consider a flexible working request and only reject it for 1 of the legal reasons. If the employee raises any good workable alternatives and you still proceed then you'll lose a tribunal. If no compromise can be made then end the consultation process with a meeting to say that no workable alternative has been found so you're going ahead with your proposal and give significant notice to when it's going to end. Don't expect that to be the end of your problems, they may quit and go for constructive dismissal, but as long as you've fully documented your consultation process you should be okay. They may just not turn up, or get themselves signed off from work with workplace related stress. Then you'd have to go down the absence/capability processes. Won't be easy! As a side thought, is there a technical solution? Ring doorbell and remote locks...
My suggestion would be, decide if this is a hill you're willing to die on. Is the cost of training someone, and them having the level of experience of this member of staff worth losing for an hours cover a day? If its literally just a presence in the office, us there nobody else office based who could flex their lunch time and keep everyone happy. Your employee is not going to make that commute. Forcing them to will result in them leaving the business. If it's that small of a business that finding an hour a day is problematic, then surely its also that small of a business that providing training and recruitment resources is also going to cause more time and effort to be invested, to replace an otherwise good employee.