Can my employer require me to work at home.

[BakerT]

My employer has moved to smaller premises and I am due to retire in November.
My job is coming to an end in November and they will not replace me.
My employer wants me to work at home but my land certificate has a clause ''no paid employment or business is allowed on the property''.
I have been to see the manager about this and shown him a copy of the land certificate and he has just said if I can not comply with the instructions I will have to resign.
My contract with my employer does not state home working is required.
Does anybody know my legal position in relation to this?.

Ted

[rowanwitch]

Do you belong to a union?

It seems unreasonable of your employer and as you can not comply due to home circs I doubt he can force you to do this...

Its an odd one I think I'd try the ACAS helpline they are very helpful and will advise you properly

[tonywiltshire]

Do not resign, if there is no express term that you may be required to work from home (it would not be an implied term). Your employer would have to vary the terms of the contract, this would have to be by agreement, you would not agree, a section 4 notice, to which you would object, or dismissal and re-engagement, where you would claim unfair dismissal and, if you have been with your present employer for at least one year, you would assert your right go to an employment tribunal.
The courts recognise it is necessary on occasions to impose contractual changes for genuine reasons, but as you retire later this year this may not be accepted and probably not worth your employer trying to vary your contract in this way.
I suggest you talk to your employer and reach agreement that they continue to pay you to your retirement date in November.

[joko]

it depends what the work is i'd think ...
i mean that clause means you cannot start up and run a business from home, but, for instance, if you were a teacher and needed to mark some pupils workbooks, and did it at home, or if you were working on a clients file and decided to type it up at home - it is not the same thing... it would not be classed as 'working from home'.

is it just paperwork or something?
you would not be setting up your home as part of the company

[HowardKennitby]

How many hours a week are you working now? Will you be expected to maintain this from home? How will you be getting your workload at home?

[Skyline D]

Realistically, who would ever know presuming it's a paperwork / desk / phone task and not working on cars in your driveway?

I have no doubt whatsoever that tony has provided the correct legal advice. However, if you were actually willing to work from home then you could and no-one would know. joko has summed the situation up in practical terms already. The purpose of the clause isn't to stop people working from home it's to stop anti-social business activity in a residential area.

If you are determined to avoid doing it I expect the law will back you as tony outlines.

[BakerT]

Hi

I know a childminder was stopped from working at home on our estate. She was looking after 3 children maximum and somebody got the clause enforced.
According to a neighbour next door to her she did not know the children were there and I think this was just done out of spite.
For this reason I feel I can not risk working at home even though most of the work would be on a computer with a case full of papers.
To be honest I would have thought it would be more cost effective to retire me off early and to pay some redundancy.
My contract says I have to be paid 3 months salary if no notice is gven and if my pension was started now I would not lose much but my employrs will not accept this.
I will see what ACAS says,

Ted

[jackthehat]

In the circumstances you describe, the 'dropping off' and 'collecting' of strange children obviously became apparent to whichever 'nosy' neighbour complained.

Doing paperwork will hardly flag you up as 'working from home' and it would be a pretty hard case to prove that you were, indeed, carrying out quiet paid employment.

[bednobs]

i think people are missing the point. Baker does not want to work at home and in my opinion shouldn't have to in these circumstances, or be made to resign.
I have worked from home before and unless circumstances were desperate, would not want to again

[NKDK]

if it doesn't say in your contract that you may be ask to work from home then you don't have to agree. Your not bound to anything and when it comes to employment and employers its the -> employee <- who has the most rights! ACAS are your best bet on this one. 99.9% tells me that u don't have to work from home at all, sounds like there winging it. I'm taking it your pay is salary based, because, i cant see how they'd make it work if your paid hourly. If you are hourly paid then could this be a way to cut your hours?

[Hopkirk]

Think of the petrol you will save. It's going up every day.

[Skyline D]

Not missing the point at all bednobs, he's been perfectly clear he doesn't want to do it. People are giving an opinion on whether or not it's a reasonable course of action. Everybody's circumstances are different of course. I agree, I hate working from home and would never want to do it if I didn't have to. I live reasonably close to my office and simply come back to work at night when I'm busy rather than take work home. I don't really have either the space or the peace to work from home so choose not to. But if the circumstances were as Ted describes I'd cope with it, not scramble around looking for a property clause to legally get me out of it. Which is what he's doing ultimately.