What Is a Mobility Clause in Redundancy Situations?

A mobility clause in redundancy situations is a contractual term that allows an employer to require an employee to work at different locations as part of their employment. In redundancy contexts, it is relevant because it can affect whether a role is genuinely redundant and whether an employee can be offered alternative work instead of being dismissed.

In UK employment law, mobility clauses are interpreted strictly by courts and tribunals, particularly where enforcement would significantly change an employee's working conditions or place of work. Their application during redundancy must still comply with fairness requirements under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

What a Mobility Clause Means in Employment Contracts

A mobility clause is a provision in an employment contract that allows the employer to change the employee's workplace location.

It may range from:

• A narrow clause (e.g. relocation within the same city or region)
• A wider clause (e.g. relocation anywhere in the UK)

The wording of the clause is crucial. Tribunals interpret such clauses strictly, meaning employers cannot rely on vague wording to impose unreasonable relocations.

Role of Mobility Clauses in Redundancy Situations

Mobility clauses become relevant in redundancy situations where an employer argues that a job is not redundant because:

• The employee could be moved to another site
• Work still exists in a different location
• The organisation is restructuring geographically rather than eliminating roles

In such cases, employers may attempt to rely on mobility clauses to avoid declaring a redundancy situation.

However, whether this is lawful depends on reasonableness and contractual interpretation.

Legal Test: Is Relocation a Genuine Alternative?

Employment tribunals will assess whether:

• The mobility clause clearly allows the proposed relocation
• The employer acted reasonably in relying on the clause
• The relocation is not so substantial that it changes the nature of employment

Even where a mobility clause exists, employers must still act reasonably under general fairness principles in dismissal law.

A key question is whether relocation is genuinely suitable alternative employment or whether refusal of relocation makes redundancy unavoidable.

Reasonableness and Enforcement of Mobility Clauses

Courts have consistently held that mobility clauses must be exercised reasonably. Factors considered include:

• Distance of relocation
• Impact on commuting time and cost
• Employee's personal circumstances
• Whether the relocation changes job role substantially
• Whether adequate notice is given

A broad clause does not automatically give employers unrestricted relocation powers.

If enforcement would cause significant hardship, tribunals may find that refusal is reasonable and redundancy remains valid.

Mobility Clauses and Suitable Alternative Employment

In redundancy law, employers must consider whether suitable alternative employment exists. A mobility clause may allow:

• Transfer to another site or branch
• Continuation of the same role in a different location
• Redeployment within the organisation

However, for a role to be “suitable”, it must be reasonable in terms of:

• Pay and benefits
• Job duties
• Working hours
• Location and commuting requirements

If relocation under a mobility clause significantly worsens working conditions, it may not qualify as suitable alternative employment.

Refusal of Relocation and Redundancy Pay

Where an employee refuses relocation under a mobility clause, entitlement to redundancy pay depends on whether the refusal is reasonable.

Reasonable refusal may include:

• Excessive travel distance
• Relocation affecting childcare or caring responsibilities
• Significant increase in commuting cost or time
• Health or disability-related barriers

In such cases, employees are generally still entitled to statutory redundancy pay.

Unreasonable refusal may include:

• Refusing a minor or clearly contractual relocation
• Refusing a move that is reasonable within the contract terms
• Refusing without considering alternatives

Unreasonable refusal of suitable alternative employment may result in loss of redundancy entitlement.

Trial Periods and Relocated Roles

If relocation under a mobility clause leads to a new working arrangement, a statutory four-week trial period may apply where:

• The role is significantly different
• Location changes materially affect working conditions

During the trial period:

• The employee can assess suitability
• Either party can end the arrangement
• Redundancy rights may be preserved if the role proves unsuitable

This is particularly relevant where relocation fundamentally changes the employment relationship.

Legal Risks for Employers

Misuse or overreliance on mobility clauses can create legal risk, including:

Unfair dismissal claims

If relocation is enforced unreasonably or used to avoid redundancy obligations.

Breach of contract claims

If relocation goes beyond what the contract allows.

Failure to offer suitable alternative employment

If relocation is treated as automatic without assessing suitability.

Employment tribunals will examine whether the employer acted fairly in both contractual and redundancy law terms.

Interaction With Redundancy Consultation

Mobility clauses must still be considered within the redundancy consultation process.

Employers are expected to:

• Explain relocation options clearly
• Consult with employees on willingness to relocate
• Consider objections and personal circumstances
• Assess whether relocation avoids redundancy fairly

A failure to address relocation properly during consultation may weaken the fairness of the redundancy process.

Common Issues With Mobility Clauses

Overly broad clauses

Clauses stating “anywhere in the UK” are often challenged if applied unreasonably.

Lack of consultation

Employees not being properly consulted on relocation options.

Sudden enforcement

Attempting to rely on mobility clauses late in the redundancy process.

Failure to assess suitability

Treating relocation as automatic alternative employment without analysis.

Practical Importance for Employees

Employees should consider:

• Exact wording of the mobility clause in their contract
• Whether relocation is genuinely reasonable
• Impact on travel, cost, and personal life
• Whether alternative roles exist locally or within the organisation
• Whether consultation has addressed relocation properly

These factors are often central in redundancy disputes and tribunal claims.

Key Takeaways

A mobility clause in redundancy situations allows an employer to require relocation of an employee, but it is not an absolute right. Its enforcement depends on the wording of the contract and whether the relocation is reasonable in practice. In redundancy cases, mobility clauses may affect whether a role is genuinely redundant or whether suitable alternative employment exists. Employers must still act fairly, consult properly, and consider individual circumstances. Unreasonable reliance on mobility clauses can lead to unfair dismissal or breach of contract claims.