The EAT has held that an employment tribunal erred in finding that two employees had been dismissed for redundancy when their employer had purported to exercise a mobility clause to move them to another office when their office closed. The employees had refused to move to the other office and had been dismissed for refusing to comply with a reasonable instruction under their contracts. The reason for their dismissal had, on the facts, been alleged misconduct.
Regardless of its finding that the tribunal had erred in identifying the reason for the dismissals, the EAT upheld the tribunal's finding that the dismissals had been unfair. The tribunal had found that, in the circumstances, the employer had not been entitled to rely on the mobility clause, its instruction to move to the other office had not been reasonable and the employees had reasonable grounds to refuse.