A workplace relocation termination confronts many employees with a difficult decision: should I accept the offer or fight it? The following example is fictional and serves only to illustrate a typical case. All names and companies are invented.
The Starting Point: A Fictional Case
Ms. S. has worked for eight years as an accountant at a medium-sized logistics company we’ll call Nordlog. Her employment contract expressly names Cologne as her place of work. Her commute is 20 minutes by car. In summer, she learns that Nordlog plans to abandon the Cologne site and relocate to Dortmund. Management cites high rents and the desire to consolidate all departments at one location.
Weeks later, Ms. S. receives a letter: Nordlog offers her continued employment at the new site. Salary and position remain unchanged. However, her commute would increase to roughly 1.5 hours each way. Ms. S. has two school-age children and cannot simply move. She declines the offer.
Nordlog responds with a change notice: the company terminates the existing employment relationship effective December 31 and simultaneously offers continued employment from January 1 under unchanged conditions at the new location. Ms. S. is uncertain. What does this letter mean? Must she accept the offer? And what happens if she refuses?
Workplace Relocation Termination: Legal Classification
A change notice is a termination of the existing employment contract combined with an offer to continue the employment relationship under altered conditions. The employer chooses this route when a contractual change cannot be unilaterally imposed. This is regularly the case with a workplace relocation when the place of work is fixed in the contract. The employer’s managerial authority does not permit simply moving the workplace unilaterally.
The same requirements for validity apply to a change notice as to any other termination. In Ms. S.’s case, a redundancy termination may apply because her previous job ceases to exist. Additionally, the change offer must be socially justified. This means the altered conditions must be reasonable for the employee. Whether this is so depends on the circumstances. Courts consider factors such as commute length, relocation feasibility, family obligations, and length of service.
A commute of 1.5 hours each way may be unreasonable in an individual case, but need not be. The decisive factor is always an overall assessment. The question of whether the employer offers alternatives, such as another nearby workplace or remote work, also plays a role.
Options for Action: What Ms. S. Can Do Now
The most important deadline is the three-week period. Anyone who receives a change notice must act within three weeks of receipt, otherwise the change is deemed accepted. This applies even if the offer is not expressly accepted. Swift action is therefore essential.
Ms. S. has two basic options: she can reject the change and accept the termination. The employment relationship then ends on December 31. Alternatively, she can file an unfair dismissal claim to have the termination declared invalid. The second option is to accept the change under protest. This means she continues working in Dortmund from January but informs the employer that she does not accept the change permanently. Even then, she must file a claim within three weeks, otherwise the change becomes effective.
In a workplace relocation termination, the three-week deadline is the critical point. Anyone who lets it lapse loses their rights. How to proceed is explained in our overview article on the unfair dismissal claim.
Before Ms. S. decides, she should seek legal advice. A specialist employment lawyer can assess the prospects of success. If she opts for a claim but wishes to avoid the cost risk, a litigation funder like RechtStark can assume the funding. RechtStark examines whether the proceedings are promising and bears the costs if successful. Representation itself is always handled by the lawyer.
Possible Outcomes: From Labor Court to Settlement
What happens if Ms. S. files a claim? The labor court first examines whether the change notice is socially justified. If the court finds the transfer to Dortmund unreasonable, the change is invalid. The original employment contract with Cologne as the place of work then continues. However, the job in Cologne no longer exists. The employer may then issue a new, pure termination notice. The court would have to review its validity again.
If the court instead finds the change reasonable, Ms. S. must take up work in Dortmund. The employment relationship continues under the altered conditions. A third possibility is a settlement: the parties agree to end the employment relationship in return for a severance payment. The amount is a matter of negotiation and depends on factors such as length of service, age, and the specific situation. There is no guarantee of a specific sum.
Anyone who receives a workplace relocation termination should be aware of these possible outcomes. Often a settlement is the most pragmatic solution because both sides want to avoid uncertainty. More on severance payments can be found in our guide severance after termination.
Lessons for Readers: How to Respond Correctly
Several general lessons can be drawn from Ms. S.’s case. First: never ignore such a termination. The three-week deadline runs relentlessly. Anyone who does nothing loses automatically. Second: do not reject hastily. Anyone who rejects the offer risks losing their job without receiving a severance payment. Anyone who accepts under protest secures their income for the time being and can sue in peace.
Third: keep all documents carefully, especially the termination letter and the change offer. Note when you received the letter, because receipt determines the deadline. Fourth: seek advice early. A specialist employment lawyer can assess whether the change is reasonable and how high the chances of a settlement are. If costs are an obstacle, a litigation funder like RechtStark can examine whether it can assume the funding.
Similar questions arise in other redundancy terminations, for example when an entire site is closed. How employees can protect their rights in such cases is shown in our article on the redundancy termination at Ubisoft.
Ultimately, it always comes down to an assessment: is the new workplace reasonable? Or has the reasonableness threshold been exceeded? Anyone who clarifies this question early can make an informed decision — and need not act out of fear.
Note: This article is for general information purposes only and does not replace individual legal advice. For a free initial assessment of whether litigation funding may be an option for your case, you can contact RechtStark.