One involved a security manager wanting to work in Cornwall, the other an estate agent who claimed demotion after being assigned a different desk. These very different tribunal cases show that when it comes to workplace relocation, whether a few feet or a few hundred miles, getting it wrong can be a costly move for employers.

The first case posed a remote working dilemma. Nick Kitaruth, a security manager, was dismissed after working from his parents’ home in Cornwall, 200 miles from his usual base at the QEII Conference Centre in Westminster.

Kitaruth had previously worked from Cornwall, based on an informal verbal agreement with his manager, and believed this would apply during the quieter August period. But this time it led to accusations that Kitaruth had acted without authorisation and wasn’t fulfilling his role.

The tribunal ruled that Kitaruth’s dismissal was unfair. The key failing? His employer’s investigation process.  No formal interview was undertaken with the manager before deciding to dismiss Kitaruth, where a proper investigation would have revealed how informal the arrangement had been and that misunderstandings were likely.

Concluding that “no reasonable employer” would have proceeded to dismissal without clarifying this crucial point, the tribunal also criticised the excessive delays in the disciplinary process, which took six weeks for an investigation and seven months for an appeal.

Explained Chris Dewey, employment expert with Ward Gethin Archer Solicitors:  “This case underscores the need for employers to be thorough in agreements over remote working, and prompt in managing disciplinary action. Even though the tribunal was doubtful as to whether any work was actually carried out during the remote working, that didn’t affect their decision – although they have ruled that the compensation will be reduced by 50% because of that.”

In the other case, a senior estate agent successfully claimed constructive dismissal after being assigned to a less prestigious desk in his office. Nicholas Walker argued that being moved from the “back” desk — traditionally reserved for the branch manager — to a more central position was a symbolic demotion.  

The tribunal agreed that the desk assignment could reasonably be viewed as a demotion and found that the employer’s handling of the situation damaged the trust and confidence required in an employment relationship, and compensation will be decided at a later date.

Chris added : “Ultimately, these cases show how situations can escalate and have significant legal consequences if not handled with care.  Ensuring clear policies, excellent communication, fair procedures, and sensitivity to employee concerns can help avoid damaging disputes.”