Bury-based fashion retailer JD Sports has been ordered to pay thousands of pounds to a former employee who was unable to commute to an office miles away from his home.
The company was ordered to pay more than £14,000 to a former customer care advisor who was denied permission to work remotely instead of moving to a new office.
Edward Baxter worked for JD Sports from January 2016 until August 2022 when the company relocated its Customer Care team to its Kingsway office in Rochdale.
READ MORE: New Bury JD Sports headquarters development approved
An employment tribunal heard that Mr Baxter recieved a letter from his employer confirming the move to Rochdale.
The report said: "The letter the claimant received said the final day at the Bury office would be 31 May 2022.
"The claimant was concerned about the move and tried to find out more details, as nobody had spoken to him about it.
He enquired about working at home permanently as an alternative, but was told by a line manager that this was not an option, although there might be some hybrid work."
Mr Baxter told managers he could not commute to the Rochdale office 13 miles away from his home as it could not be reached directly with public transport, and he does not own a car.
The hearing was told he would be able to occasionally go into the office when necessary.
READ MORE: Bury schools to discover if they will receive share of £456 million
The tribunal, heard in Manchester on February 7 and 8 this year, heard Mr Baxter was asked to work from home for 12 weeks while building work took place at the Kingsway office, but told he could not continue to do so following this period.
Members of the customer care team, including Mr Baxter had also worked remotely from March 2020 when the UK Government imposed a nationwide lockdown.
The report of the hearing, published by HM Courts & Tribunals Service said Mr Baxter raised a grievance with the company in May 2022, suggesting he work from home as an alternative to the office move. After the grievance and a subsequent appeal were rejected, Mr Baxter resigned in August 2023.
The report said: “The problem for the claimant was the time it would take him to commute from home to Kingsway and the impact this would have on his work-life balance.
“He had been successfully doing all his required tasks remotely from home for over two years without any problems. He had been able to do everything asked of him from home, including conducting training.
“There were no issues with his performance whilst working from home. His team had adjusted to this and productivity was good. This was not disputed.
The report stated:"Each employee had to vote yes or no to the move" and that the claimant was told "that if he did not vote yes, he would have to resign."
READ MORE: Bury Market stalls take part in scheme to help families afford food
Mr Baxter applied for two other roles based at the company’s office but was not successful and has since accepted a job at another organisation.
Employment Judge Liz Ord upheld the claim made by Mr Baxter and ruled that "it was not reasonable" for JD Sports to require Mr Baxter to move offices to do his job.
In making her decision, the report stated: "It was not reasonable to require the claimant to move to Kingsway for the proper performance of his duties.
"Therefore, enforcing the move was not within the terms of the claimant’s contractual mobility clause.
"The respondent did not have reasonable and proper cause to move the claimant to Kingsway and the move was likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between the claimant and the respondent.
"The breach was sufficiently serious to be fundamental, entitling the claimant to resign and treat himself as dismissed.
"He did so, and the reason for his resignation was the breach. There is no issue regarding affirmation of the contract. The claimant did not affirm it.
She awarded him a total of £14,215.95 including more than £10,000 to compensate for loss of earnings.
When contacted by the Bury Times JD Sports declined to comment.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel