2 years ago an employee told us that his car had broken down beyond repair, and he could not afford to replace it. Most of our work locations are very remote with small teams of 2-5 staff, and it is important to us that staff have their own transport. We were concerned enough to offer him a loan at the time, but he refused, and since then, he has relied on the goodwill of his colleagues to get him to work. We are now in the position that work at his location will end in September. We have spoken to all the staff involved and assured them that there would be no redundancies as we have vacancies on other locations- all within a reasonable travelling distance (in some cases- nearer). Everyone is happy except this employee, who says that we knew he would not be able to travel, we are constructively dismissing him, and he will not leave of his own accord. (his lift will no longer be available in September) My concern is not that he is threatening us but that the process is correct. I would add that we would not normally recruit anyone who does not have their own transport as we know they will not always be able to get to work. Is there a case for redundancy here? We are offering a reasonable alternative and he has refused. The contract does have a mobility clause but I know this has not always stood up at a tribunal- any thoughts?
fiona fritz