Mobility vs Redundancy: Invoking Mobility Obligations In Potential Redundancy Situations

The recent Court of Appeal case of Home Office v Evans [2007] EWCA Civ 1089 held that an employer was entitled to choose to invoke its employees’ contractual mobility obligations rather than follow a redundancy procedure.

The claimants were Immigration Officers at the Waterloo International Terminal ("WIT"). After deciding to close its Waterloo immigration control, the Home Office informed all staff subject to contractual mobility clauses that they would be offered alternative employment elsewhere in the Immigration Service. Having been informed that they would be transferred to Heathrow, the claimants resigned, and alleged they had done so by reason of constructive dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal decided that the closure of WIT amounted to a redundancy situation and so the Home Office’s redundancy procedure applied. According to the tribunal, it followed that the attempt to invoke the claimants’ mobility obligations was a deliberate effort to avoid complying with the redundancy