What is a Section 278 Agreement?

A Section 278 Agreement is a legal agreement between a developer and a highway authority to carry out highway works.

Transfers And Training: Alternatives To Dismissal – But Not Without Risk

Not every workplace issue is best solved by sanction. Two of the most constructive actions short of dismissal – transfer and training – can protect the employment relationship while addressing root causes. But both can misfire legally and operationally if HR treats them as informal “fixes” rather than contractual interventions.

A transfer (different team, role, or location) can be highly effective for interpersonal conflict, team fit issues, or capability concerns where the employee may succeed in a different environment. Mobility clauses can make relocation transfers easier, and lateral moves can sometimes de-escalate a situation without the finality of termination.

The risks arise where transfer becomes a disguised penalty or is imposed without authority. Compelling a move – especially relocation – without a contractual mobility clause or the employee’s agreement can be a fundamental breach, enabling constructive dismissal arguments. Even where a mobility clause exists, employers must exercise it reasonably: adequate notice, consideration of caring responsibilities, and genuine business rationale all matter. Lateral transfers can also be risky if the new role is materially different in status, duties, or prospects. And operationally, a transfer can simply relocate the problem: performance issues may follow the employee into a new team, creating wider disruption.

Training is often the least contentious intervention, because it signals investment rather than punishment. Additional technical training can address capability; targeted conduct-related training (for example following inappropriate remarks) can demonstrate corrective action and reduce the likelihood of recurrence. It also supports a later dismissal decision if, despite support, standards do not improve.

But training is only effective if it is meaningful and properly recorded. Mandating training perceived as pointless or humiliating can entrench resistance. Timing also matters: training during working hours is usually straightforward, whereas requiring personal time can be contentious unless contractually permitted. HR should document attendance, content, and post-training expectations, then measure improvement against clear review points.

Whether you choose transfer or training, the same best-practice framework applies: proportionality, procedure, paper trail, and monitoring. In tribunal terms, the question is rarely “Did you do something short of dismissal?” It is, “Was what you did a reasonable response, implemented fairly, and grounded in contract or consent?” When HR can answer “yes” to all three, these interventions become powerful tools – not just softer options.significant financial penalties, potential uplifts in compensation, and even criminal liability for failing to file an HR1 form.

About Jon Dunkley

Jon Dunkley is a Partner at Wollens and heads up the firm’s Regulatory Department. Based at our North Devon office, Jon is a highly experienced solicitor with a broad commercial and regulatory practice, supporting businesses, professionals and senior employees across a wide range of legal issues.