The employer appealed findings of constructive dismissal after two of its immigration officers had refused to be moved under mobility clauses in their contracts, rather than be made redundant.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question was not the Home Office’s motive for its change of mind, but whether it was legally entitled to invoke the mobility clause. It was so entitled. Curling was not authority for the proposition that an employer is not legally entitled to invoke a mobility clause when a redundancy situation might arise or has arisen on the closure of part of a business.
Judges:
Mummery LJ, Laws LJ, Blackburne J
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 1089, [2008] IRLR 59, [2008] ICR 302
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 139
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Curling and others v Securicor Ltd EAT 28-Jul-1992
The employer wanted to invoke a mobility clause raher than, as it originally set out to do, to consult on redundancies. The change of course was first raised at the hearing in the industrial tribunal.
Held: The principle that the employer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.260197
