An employee worked as a service agent for a cleaning company at several sites in the same city.
The mobility clause in her contract was then invoked by her employer, who asked her to work part of the time at two other sites located in another city, about 15 kilometres away.
She refused and was dismissed for serious misconduct.
She contested the dismissal, explaining that:
- she did not have a driving licence or a vehicle,
- her working hours were incompatible with bus schedules.
She claimed that the use of the mobility clause was unfair when the employer imposed a new place of work at a time that did not allow her to get there by public transport.
The Court of Appeal rejected her claim.
It considered that:
- The employer had a legitimate reason for applying the mobility clause.
- The two towns were connected by public transport.
According to the Court of Appeal, even though the initial working hours proposed were not compatible with the bus timetable, the employer had sought in good faith to find a solution that avoided the employee’s dismissal, including proposing amending her employment contract with reduced working hours (something the employee had herself requested).
The Court of Cassation upheld the decision. It considered the employee’s repeated refusal to work at the new sites constituted serious misconduct, rendering it impossible for her to remain with the company.
