bas_thomasEAT199303
The court had given one judgment dismissing the employer’s appeal against a finding that the employee had not unreasonably refused a new position and was accordingly redudant. Before the order was drawn up a further point of law was raied and the court sat again to consider it. It now asked: ‘whether the criterion for determining the place where the employee was employed for the purpose of S.81(2) of the 1978 Act is ‘geographical’ or ‘contractual’, as those words are commonly used in discussion of the topic?’
Held: The order not yet having been drawn, the court had jurisdiction to continue its deliberations without needing recourse to rule 26 of the 1980 rules.
The question what is the place where an employee is employed for the purposes of S.81(2)(a) and (b) is primarily a factual one, and that the only relevant contractual terms are those which go to evidence or define the place of employment and its extent, rather than to make provision for it to be changed: ‘the references to ‘the place where [the employee] was . . employed’ in S.81(2)(a) and (b) require that the location and extent of that ‘place’ be ascertainable whether or not the employee is in fact to require to move and therefore before any such requirement is made (if it is), and without knowledge of the terms of any such requirement, or of the employee’s response, or of whether any conditions upon the making of such a requirement have been complied with. To attempt to avoid these difficulties by postulating that only terms giving the employer an unqualified right to change the place of work will have the effect of enlarging the ‘place where the employee is employed’ simply transfers the ‘borderline’ referred to above to different and even less defensible territory.’
Hicks QC HHJ
[1993] UKEAT 47 – 92 – 2203
Bailii
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 81(2), Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1980 26(1)(c)
Citing:
See Also – Bass Leisure v Thomas EAT 21-Jan-1993
Mrs T sought a redundancy payment on termination of her employment as a collector. The employer was to close the depot where she worked in Coventry, offering her first employment in Northampton. On her unhappiness at this she was offered work in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.210493
