Constructive dismissal after forced relocation: JD Sports failed to consider home working
A Customer Care Adviser who had worked from home for over two years was constructively dismissed when JD Sports forced him to relocate to a different office, increasing his commute to nearly three hours a day. The tribunal awarded £14,215.95.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #mobility-clause
- #home-working
- #commuting-difficulties
- #failure-to-consider-alternatives
Key facts
- The claimant worked from home successfully for over two years with no performance issues.
- The respondent required the claimant to relocate to a different office, increasing his commute from 20-25 minutes to 1 hour 20-30 minutes each way.
- The claimant could not drive and had no realistic alternative transport options.
- The respondent did not offer hybrid working or properly consider alternatives before the claimant resigned.
- The tribunal found the mobility clause did not reasonably require the move given the claimant's successful home working.
Timeline
-
Contract signed
Claimant started work as a Customer Care Adviser at Pilsworth Head Office, Burnley, with a mobility clause.
-
Started working from home
Due to lockdown, claimant began working from home, which continued successfully for over two years.
-
Proposal to move team
Respondent sent letter proposing to move Customer Care Team to Kingsway office in Rochdale.
-
Confirmation of move
Respondent confirmed move to Kingsway, with final day at Bury office 31 May 2022 and home working transition of 8-12 weeks.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised grievance proposing home working as alternative to relocation.
-
Grievance outcome
Grievance not upheld.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed grievance decision.
-
Appeal outcome and resignation
Appeal not upheld; 12-week transition period ended. Claimant resigned due to inability to commute to Kingsway.
-
Hearing day 1
Substantive hearing commenced at Manchester Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment
Tribunal found constructive unfair dismissal and awarded £14,215.95.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's instruction to relocate to a different office, despite the employee's successful home-working arrangement, was a fundamental breach of contract entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of constructive unfair dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The claimant had worked from home successfully for over two years with no performance issues.
- The mobility clause in the contract did not reasonably require the move given the circumstances.
- The respondent failed to properly consider alternatives such as hybrid working before the claimant resigned.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £2,287.44
- Compensatory award: £11,528.51
- Loss of earnings: £10,462.17
- Loss of pension contributions: £1,066.34
- Loss of statutory rights: £400.00
- Total: £14,215.95
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have worked from home successfully for a significant period, your employer may not be able to force you to relocate without considering alternatives.
- A mobility clause in your contract does not give your employer an unlimited right to change your workplace—it must be exercised reasonably.
- Before resigning and claiming constructive dismissal, raise a formal grievance to give your employer a chance to address the issue.
- Keep records of any proposals or requests for flexible working, as these can be crucial evidence in tribunal.
When home working becomes the norm
This case highlights how the pandemic's shift to home working can change the balance of power between employer and employee. The claimant had worked from home for over two years without any performance issues. When JD Sports decided to relocate his team to a different office, the commute would have increased from 20-25 minutes to 1 hour 20-30 minutes each way. The claimant could not drive and had no realistic alternative transport.
What JD Sports could have done differently
The tribunal noted that the mobility clause in the claimant's contract did not give JD Sports an unfettered right to require the move. Given the successful home-working arrangement, the employer should have properly considered alternatives such as hybrid working. Instead, it rejected the claimant's grievance and appeal without exploring reasonable adjustments. A simple offer of continued home working or a phased return to the office might have avoided the claim entirely.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that employers must exercise contractual mobility clauses reasonably, especially when employees have established successful home-working patterns. For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim, the key is to show that the employer's conduct was a fundamental breach of contract that destroyed trust and confidence. Raising a formal grievance and giving the employer a chance to remedy the situation is a critical step.
Similar cases
18-year employee loses constructive dismissal claim over flexible working refusal
An engineer with 18 years' service resigned after his request for a four-day week was refused. The employment tribunal found his employer had reasonable cause and dismissed the claim.
Security guard wins redundancy pay after 13-year assignment ends
A security guard with 13 years' service on the same assignment was awarded redundancy pay after his employer failed to offer suitable alternative work before the assignment ended. The tribunal rejected claims for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages.
30-year employee forced to move without consultation: constructive dismissal
A community support worker with 30 years' service was constructively unfairly dismissed after her employer moved her to a location inaccessible by public transport without any consultation. The tribunal awarded £39,609.
Constructive dismissal after eight-month wait for grievance outcome
An NHS employee resigned after waiting nearly eight months for her grievance outcome. The tribunal found she was constructively unfairly dismissed and awarded £3,756.60.