# Can employer add international travel to a role previously office based?



## Zed (22 Feb 2011)

Hello Everyone,

I am a long time lurker on askaboutmoney and congratulations to you all on a fantastic site & invaluable resource. I have a complicated and worrying situation in my workplace that I could badly do with advice on. I will try to be as concise as possible so please bear with me:

In 2006 I began work with a company in a role that involved international travel as standard

Approximately 1 year later in 2007 I went to my MD explaining that I did not feel the role was for me and advising that I would tender my resignation. The main reason I was unhappy with the role was the international travel element which as well as meetings involved wining and dining key contacts within companies. Most of these key contacts were older men and as a young woman I did not feel comfortable fulfilling this part of the role alone in a foreign company. One particular incident brought me to the conclusion that the risks involved in this element of the role were too much for me. My MD listened to what I had to say and said he did not want to lose me as an employee so created an office based role for me to fill

I am now approximately 4 years in the office based role and the role is demanding and varied. I manage a team of 5 others and have a managerial title. The duties that make up my role have varied and expanded over the past 4 years but the role was always office based. All feedback I have received in this role has been excellent and it is vital to the current company structure.

I have now been informed that I will be expected to once again undertake international travel. I can see no logical reason for this as there are several other staff members that undertake this travel as part of their regular duties and I do not wish to undertake this travel for the same reasons as explained in 2007.

Can my employer force me to either do the international travel or resign?

The only contract of employment I have is the one I was first given when I joined the company in 2006 which states I must be flexible in relation to my duties and location. I do have a number of job specifications laying out my duties over the past 4 years while office based at all times. 

I would greatly appreciate any advice or insight as I am worried sick about this. If you need any further information please let me know.


----------



## sunnywalk (22 Feb 2011)

Hi Zed

the title of your post is a little misleading..



> Can employer add international travel to a role previously office based?


and when you read through your post ..its actually the reverse isnt it? when you applied for and got the positon you did understand that the role did consist of international travel.
I see you renegotiated the terms of your role due to you feeling uncomfortable meeting clients who in the most part were older men and that an incident in particular drove you to talk to your MD. 

They accomodated you at the time.. was this for safety? or was it just to acccmodate you in general? Your company do have a duty to provide a safe working environment for you at all times and to carry out risk assesments and if you are at risk because of the nature of the role, then your company does have a legal obligation to ensure safe practices.. how that could be applied to meeting clients, I dont really know but the company needs to figure this out.
I would imagine as the role originally required foreign travel, then the company can at any stage request you do so again as long as they take actions on the concerns you outlined.. ie safety..
Is it just the safety issue that is concerning you? or have you other reasons why you do not want to take up the foreign travel again? do you have a family young childern etc.?


> My MD listened to what I had to say and said he did not want to lose me as an employee so created an office based role for me to fill


I take it from the comment above that you were prepared to resign if the company could not accmodate you?  are you prepared to resign again if they change your job role back to the orginal job role? 
you also state that they created a job role for you? is the company now scaling back ?
There was a time during the celtic tiger when employees could make various demands.. these times are now changing and the reverse is now happening.. do you think what is happening now is a result of changing times?


----------



## sunnywalk (22 Feb 2011)

hi Zed
have read your post and mine again... and i know i have asked you loads of questions that you prob did answer in your OP... so apologies for that...

the short answer is yes they can ask you to do international travel again..mainly because your contract specifies flexibility by location.


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2011)

sunnywalk said:


> the short answer is yes they can ask you to do international travel again..mainly because your contract specifies flexibility by location.



Yea, but there's a precedent set now. I'm not sure if they could now as the OP has been doing a non-travel job for four years.


----------



## Zed (22 Feb 2011)

_Thanks for your reply sunnywalk! I have tried to answer your questions below I hope you can follow me:_

the title of your post is a little misleading..


and when you read through your post ..its actually the reverse isnt it? when you applied for and got the positon you did understand that the role did consist of international travel.

_ The original role I was in from 2006 to 2007 did require international travel however the role I have been in from 2007 to date has no travel aspect - they are really very separate roles with differing responsibilities. I see where you are coming from but my entire role has changed to one of management of others who undertake the international travel._

They accomodated you at the time.. was this for safety? or was it just to acccmodate you in general?

_It was not for safety reasons I was accommodated - due to being unhappy with the international travel element of the role I spoke informally to my MD to advise I would tender my resignation; at no time did I request a different role within the company however that was what was offered to me. The reasoning I was given was that due to good performance as an employee they did not want to lose me from the company. Our current employees undertaking international travel are all male _

Is it just the safety issue that is concerning you? or have you other reasons why you do not want to take up the foreign travel again? do you have a family young childern etc.?

_I do not want to do the international travel the main reason being the safety concern, I do not have children. It is also a huge step backwards for me to go back almost 5 years in responsibility terms but this is secondary._

I take it from the comment above that you were prepared to resign if the company could not accmodate you?  are you prepared to resign again if they change your job role back to the orginal job role? 

_Yes I was ready to resign 4 years ago however then I would have had no problem securing a similar position locally. Now it will be next to impossible to secure a similar position or even a position at all._

you also state that they created a job role for you? is the company now scaling back ?

_The company has expanded every year since i have been there - 2010 was our most profitable year to date._

There was a time during the celtic tiger when employees could make various demands.. these times are now changing and the reverse is now happening.. do you think what is happening now is a result of changing times?

_I did not make any demands - I was open and honest about my intention to resign - I was offered a different office based role which I accepted and have worked very hard at for the last 4 years. I find it incredibly unfair if my employer can change a mutually agreed condition of my employment for the past 4 years by once again requesting I do international travel._


----------



## Zed (22 Feb 2011)

Hi again sunnywalk,

I think perhaps I have went too far into detail of the reason I don't want to do the international travel. My contract refers to my original role from 2006 to 2007 only - I was never issued with an updated contract but now do a very different job which is office based.
After 4 years of office based work can my employer add international travel to my role without my agreement?
I will not do the international travel yet do not want to resign without another job to go to. If I refuse to do the travel can I be dismissed?


----------



## Zed (22 Feb 2011)

Purple said:


> Yea, but there's a precedent set now. I'm not sure if they could now as the OP has been doing a non-travel job for four years.



Hi Purple, thanks for your reply! 

That is what I think also; really the fact that I carried out international travel in year 1 is irrelevant as for the past 4 years I have worked in a very different role with an agreement that there would be no travel element. The company is very lax with contracts and there are some staff that don't even have them; the contract I and they have is also unsigned by either party if that makes a difference...


----------



## onq (22 Feb 2011)

Hi Zed,

Refusing to do something on safety grounds is not a ground for dismissal as far as I can recall.
However, refusing to socialize with business contacts because of a perceived risk could be problematical.
For example, there would no reason why your employer couldn't arrange for you to have a "minder" to look after you while abroad - at all times.
Thus the allegation of hazard in the workplace may have to be backed up by something more substantial than what you expressed above for this to be a valid reason for refusing to work.
It does not appear to be a straightforward case and I think you should take competent legal advice from someone well versed in both the Employment Law acquis and the Health and Safety legislation.

ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied        upon    as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal    action     be    taken.
 Competent legal professionals should be asked to advise in           Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the   matters     at     hand.


----------



## Zed (22 Feb 2011)

onq said:


> Hi Zed,
> 
> Refusing to do something in safety grounds is not a ground for dismissal
> The allegation of hazard in the workplace may have to be backed up by something more substantial than what you expressed above for this to be a valid reason for refusing to work.
> It does not appear to be a straightforward case and I think you should take competent legal advice from someone well versed in both the Employment Law acquis and the Health and Safety legislation.



Hi ONQ, thanks for your reply! 

Leaving aside my reasons for not wanting to do the travel - Having worked for 4 years in an office based role (though no contract stating this) can travel be added without my agreement?


----------



## onq (22 Feb 2011)

Hi Zed,

You're very welcome.

I think there is a grey area here of what your job description actually comprises at this point in time.
One view might be that the company has accommodated your wishes but the original job discription still stands.
Another view might be that they have de facto entered into an agreement with you to allow you continue in a deskjob.
This latter view may be supported by the several job specifications tey have issued you with while in your desk job capacity.

While I accept your point in principle, others might thing your position unsustainable, - to apply for a job with travel invovled and then say you didn't want to travel.
If you persist in this strategy you might find your current position  becomes redundant as they advertise for someone who does your job but  with travel made mandatory.
The Irish courts tend to support the letter of an agreement where one  exists - if your motivations were examined in a court situation I'm  not sure you would be supported.
If the position was reversed - you wanted a  job with travel but had been made do a desk job - you'd have a case against them for unilaterally changing your conditions of work.

For what its worth, I would be surprised if they now tried to make your position redundant Zed - they have acccommdated you before now and may be unwilling to lose you.
However someoen may have whispered in their ear that you are being unreasonable and that they should not allow the situation to persist with trying a few suggestions on you.
As I noted above, there is nothing to stop them offering you a secutiry detail to mind you while you travel abroad - the guard could be female - but you would have to agree to it.

So with the greatest of respect, I don't think you CAN leave your reasons behind Zed.
I think instead you may need to address them - all I've done in this post is set out a few stalls.

If I was an attractive lady getting asked to travel around the world and broaden the mind, I'd say yes.
However I'd take a different stance to yours and seek after hours relaxation with a better gender balance.

I would make the case strongly that I'm not concerned with the travel but with the stress and loss of dignity.
I would ask the company to ensure that I'm not being walked into compromising situations in the presence of alcohol.
I think once you refer to the terms - "safety" - "stress" - "dignity" - you might see them begin to see your side of things.

ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied         upon    as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal     action     be    taken.
 Competent legal professionals should be asked to advise in            Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the   matters      at     hand.


----------



## Pope John 11 (22 Feb 2011)

Zed said:


> Hi ONQ, thanks for your reply!
> 
> Leaving aside my reasons for not wanting to do the travel...........


The courts or tribunal will consider all the facts including your reasons for not wanting to do the travel in a case in relation to a dismissal situation. 



Zed said:


> My contract refers to my original role from 2006 to 2007 only - I was never issued with an updated contract but now do a very different job which is office based.


 So, it says nothing about flexibility or travelling?

What is the reason behind the company wanting you to travel, (down turn here, expanding etc)?

The courts will take the view that 'let the other side be heard', audi alteram partem, the decision maker needs to hear both sides of the story before making a decision.

Its in your employers best interest to discuss it with you or your Union, as they will have to follow the company's fair procedures, similar to the guidelines outlined in the LRC Code of Practice 2000. But you need to be prepared with a good answer that will stack up in the tribunal and courts.

The test or question in the tribunal & the courts is - what would a reasonable employer do in the same situation


----------



## Zed (23 Feb 2011)

Hi again ONQ! 
Thanks once more for your detailed reply. I see that my predicament is not clear cut at all.
As you suggest I will explain as best I can my worries using the terms you suggest and listen to the reasons for this change and from there see if we can reach a conclusion.
The guard idea is a non runner as the possible benefit brought by the travel would be outweighed by the additionals costs of this guard
Thanks again for your help ONQ


----------



## Zed (23 Feb 2011)

Hi Pope John 11, thank you very much for your reply!

I think you missed some points in my previous posts - probably because they are long winded...



Pope John 11 said:


> So, it says nothing about flexibility or travelling?


 
The only contract I have is the one issued to me in 2006 when I first commenced work with the company and it states that I must be flexible in relation to my work and location. This contract is unsigned by both parties. When I changed role in 2007 I was not issued an updated contract



Pope John 11 said:


> What is the reason behind the company wanting you to travel, (down turn here, expanding etc)?


 
At present I do not know the reason; I was informed of this as "this is the way it will be" and no reason's were given to me; at the time I was too shocked to respond rationally and asked for some time to gather my thoughts. The company has expanded every year for the past 5 years and 2010 was our most profitable year to date. The number of people I manage has increased year on year and a travel undertaking will limit the time available to do my current job to an acceptable standard. 




Pope John 11 said:


> Its in your employers best interest to discuss it with you or your Union, as they will have to follow the company's fair procedures, similar to the guidelines outlined in the LRC Code of Practice 2000. But you need to be prepared with a good answer that will stack up in the tribunal and courts.


 
I am not a member of any union; this is a small company situation. The reason for my post is to evaluate what options are open to me and it is becoming clear to me that if the situation cannot be resolved then I will have no choice but to resign. My employer is of the "I'm the boss, what I say goes" approach and I am try to argue this I am pretty sure that is the answer I will get.

Thank you again for your help!


----------



## onq (23 Feb 2011)

You must know what way to come at this and recognise that bloodying your employer's nose in law or at the EAT (Employment Appeals Tribunal) or a Rights Commissioner's offices may not be in your best interest.
Even if yours is a small company and so not covered, the principles in "Employees (Provision of Information and Consulation) Act 2006" in relation to consulting employees are well known and also well regarded.
In the present case the paucity of information and reasoning offered by your client is a point against them, particularly in the light of your previous aversion to travelling  and their accommodation of same.
Re Pope John 11's use of "_audi alteram partem_" I think it's the employer who may need to ensure that they hear your case,  address your concerns and who should fully advise you of your position.
This is particularly relevant if the present situataion deteriorates so much that you may feel you have no option but to resign and commence a constructive dismissal action to seek redress.


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied          upon    as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal      action     be    taken.
 Competent legal professionals should be asked to advise in             Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the   matters       at     hand.


----------



## Zed (24 Feb 2011)

Thanks again ONQ! 

I absolutely realise that taking a legal or other route on this would not necessarily be in my best interests - that would a very last resort. My ideal outcome is some sort of compromise relating to this but until I hear the reasons behind it I cannot realistically put forward a compromise. I will at all times try my best to explain my thinking and reasoning calmly and hope my employer can do the same. My fear at the moment is that he will not do this as I know his temperment and dislike for his authority to be questioned - however hopefully I am only being paranoid!

I have arranged a meeting with my employer mid next week and will let you know how it goes; I am simply preparing myself for the worst in the hope that it does not come to that.

Thank you again very much for your helpful advice.


----------



## onq (24 Feb 2011)

Your employer needs to read some of the recent decisions by the Rights Commissioners, the Employment Appeals Tribunal. the Labour Court - also read the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Acts.
Autocratic entrepreneurs are terrible administrators and are all rich pickings for persons who know the law - you could make a living out of suing these people.
There is a whole world of recent law for these people to catch up on - let him start now.


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied           upon    as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal       action     be    taken.
 Competent legal professionals should be asked to advise in              Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the   matters        at     hand.


----------

