In Home Office v Evans the Court of Appeal held that a where an employer made it clear that it would not be following its own redundancy procedure and would instead be invoking the contractual mobility clause, it was entitled to choose this option. In this case, the claimants were immigration officers employed at Waterloo immigration control. The Home Office informed the officers subject to contractual mobility provisions that they would be offered alternative employment elsewhere. The officers claimed that the Home Office was in fundamental breach of their contracts by invoking the mobility provisions instead of treating the closure of the Waterloo terminal as a redundancy situation to which the Home Office redundancy procedure applied. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the Home Office was entitled to rely on its mobility obligations as soon as a potential redundancy situation arose thereby avoiding an actual redundancy situation. Employers must be careful to decide from the start whether to invoke the mobility clauses or to follow their own redundancy procedure.
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
Questions? Please contact firstname.lastname@example.orgRegister
Redundancy and mobility clauses
Popular articles from this firm
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email email@example.com.
Related topic hubs
Legal Services Director
BMW (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd
"Lexology is a quick and useful indicator of developments in the legal sphere. It alerts me to changes taking place in the legal environment in South Africa that I may not otherwise have spotted or had immediate access to as a company lawyer. It definitely serves as a trigger for me to investigate such changes in the legal landscape in South Africa as they may affect my work and that of my employer. I believe that receiving Lexology provides me with a competitive advantage."