Employer going back to 100% on-site work

[DanielFrank 0]

Two weeks ago our employer (German company) told us that they are committed to go back to on-site (office) work 100%. For the last 2 years we have been working 100% remotely. We are an IT company based in Berlin, but around 50% of the people work in different cities (Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg), even in other European countries (Netherlands, France, Spain). Before the pandemic the work was 100% on-site. During the pandemic the company started to hire aggressively, that's why we have people from places other than Berlin.

 

Now, I started to work 9 months ago. I already passed my probation period. My contract explicitly states that my regular place of work is Frankfurt (the city where I live), but it also states in vague manner that my employer may be entitled to assign me to another location. 

So, legally, my employer would have to send me a renewed contract stating that my new regular place of work is Berlin and that I have to go to the office 5 days/week. I, obviously, wouldn't sign that. I'm unsure what happens next. As far as I know the company cannot just fire me (I haven't done anything illegal, nor they have any reason to fire me... except that I won't move to Berlin, but that's not a reason to fire anyone in Germany, right?).

 

Do I have to contact a lawyer? If I refuse to sign any other contract, then my current contract is still valid, so I would still be employed. Obviously my employer would not like that, so I'm unsure as well what would be their next move.

[murphaph 9,638]

It all depends on how important you are to them I suspect. If you are replaceable they can easily fire you by closing the entire "Frankfurt office".

[tor 16,866]

can you show us the vague language, please? 

 

[DanielFrank 0]

22 minutes ago, murphaph said:

It all depends on how important you are to them I suspect. If you are replaceable they can easily fire you by closing the entire "Frankfurt office".

 

So, they can legally just fire me because they decided to close one of their "branches"? (There is no Frankfurt branch, there is only the Berlin's one). I thought that as an employee, I had more rights.

 

15 minutes ago, tor said:

can you show us the vague language, please? 

 

Sure. This is the part that states explicitly my place of work:

> Regelmäßiger Arbeitsort ist Frankfurt (Frankfurt am Main).

This is the part that states vaguely about other potential work locations:

> Der Arbeitgeber ist gleichermaßen berechtigt, den Arbeitnehmer an einem anderen Ort einzusetzen.

[tor 16,866]

that is not really vague. 

[DanielFrank 0]

4 minutes ago, tor said:

that is not really vague. 

 

Well, compared to the statement that says where my regular place of work is, I think it is.
Based on that, if they decide to relocate me to, let's say, Australia, would they be just able to do get away with it?

I would understand that a reasonable new place of work shouldn't be, let's say, more than 2h away from the current place of work (e.g., think of moving an office from one building to another because lack of space). But forcing employees to move 500 km from their home (or else you are fired), well, that doesn't seem reasonable (or even legal?). I guess I'll need to get a so-called Fachanwalt für Arbeitsrecht.

[tor 16,866]

Your first call should be to HR. 

[Metall 14,512]

46 minutes ago, tor said:

Your first call should be to HR. 

And then the Betriebsrat (union).

[murphaph 9,638]

Quote

> Der Arbeitgeber ist gleichermaßen berechtigt, den Arbeitnehmer an einem anderen Ort einzusetzen.

This is unfortunately not vague and entitles the employer (equally) to define your new place of work. I guess they'd have trouble convincing a labour court that somewhere in Australia was implied but they would have no trouble convincing them that Berlin was, given the company HQ is there and you knew that when you signed. Ultimately you signed a contract that allows the employer to request you to move to Berlin. You may have to resign or be dismissed if moving doesn't work for you. Resigning would almost certainly be better. Any potential Abfindung will be really small given how long you have been an employee.

 

If you have a Betriebsrat you should talk to them really (HR will toe the company line up to and including lying about stuff) as they will surely be dealing with the same queries from many other employees and will possibly have already taken legal advice but honestly I think what I first wrote will prove to be true, if you are super valuable they will let you work remotely. If not, they will be able to get rid of you and it will probably involve you actually resigning voluntarily. Employee rights in Germany only go so far. It's different in collectively bargained industries and for civil servants etc. but the average office job in a smaller firm won't actually offer much protection in reality. On the plus side, you haven't been there long so if you want to go for it and try to extract an Abfindung (I think you'll be lucky in this case but whatever) and hence leave on bad terms then you can explain the short gap in your CV as a career break or whatever. You will not want to be using this company for a reference if you take them to the Arbeitsgericht. 

[travelerworker 116]

HI,

my experience, not a lawyer, just personal experience, is that those contracts are some sort of template that they have been using for years and don't know why.

Usually they do it to fire people, so they don't fire you but inform that your new work place is 8999 km away so you end resigning.

Of course, remember that HR is not there to help you or protect you, is to protect and help the company. They have an agenda.

If I were you I'd lead the conversation to some sort of "visit the office" from time to time approach.

Good luck!

 

[Krieg 14,917]

Basically you signed a contract in which you can be sent to work anywhere in Germany.

 

More info:  Versetzung-Arbeitsort

[Dembo 493]

I wonder why they bothered putting in the bit about Frankfurt.

 

Sounds like a crap employer and you'd be better off out of it. Also sounds like they're using it as a way of getting rid of half the staff.

[murphaph 9,638]

2 minutes ago, Dembo said:

sounds like they're using it as a way of getting rid of half the staff.

That was my first thought as well. 

[tor 16,866]

Or using it as leverage to renegotiate more favorable contracts. 

[karin_brenig 680]

20 hours ago, DanielFrank said:

Two weeks ago our employer (German company) told us that they are committed to go back to on-site (office) work 100%. For the last 2 years we have been working 100% remotely. We are an IT company based in Berlin, but around 50% of the people work in different cities (Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg), even in other European countries (Netherlands, France, Spain). Before the pandemic the work was 100% on-site. During the pandemic the company started to hire aggressively, that's why we have people from places other than Berlin.

 

Now, I started to work 9 months ago. I already passed my probation period. My contract explicitly states that my regular place of work is Frankfurt (the city where I live), but it also states in vague manner that my employer may be entitled to assign me to another location.

.....

 

so, just my two cents...

 

around 50% of your colleagues are not located in Berlin. The company hired them because they were "hurting" for people - hence the "agressive" hiring.

Have they sent any "official" letters to people, telling them to show up in Berlin, on site, on a daily basis - "or else"?
If not, do you think they are willing to risk losing 50% of their employees?

Where I work the company (actually my employer's customer) is "committed" to reeling people back in too (not 100%, but at least 80% of the time). They didn't send official communication around (yet), but they are pushing hard with all kinds of "incentives".

I'm lucky - external, old, very valuable skillset, don't need the money - so I told them I'll come in once a month, for what they call "team day". No more. I'd simply retire if they don't accept that. They are OK with it. I didn't even have to threaten, or negotiate. I simply said "once a month will be fine for me". In reality, out of the past 5 months that this "new ways of working" rule was in place, I only came in twice - scheduling conflicts, bad weather, urgent project work.... not a problem.

 

In your case, I'd wait and see what the company actually tells you (you personally, and in writing) about where they want you to sit.
Your contract allows them to assign you to other places, apart from your "regular" location.
Depending on what they tell you, and how much you like the job, you can offer them something like "once a month, if they pay for your trip".
Or you can simply tell them "thanks, but no thanks".

In the current market situation, especially in IT, you should have no problem finding a suitable job close to home (or even 100% remote).

 

Good luck !

[Dembo 493]

My employer has gone the other way and used all this as an opportunity to save on office space. There are now less desks than people and the plan is that you'll have to book a hot desk for when you want to be in the office, although it's a bit moot at the moment as there's probably never more than 10% there.

 

I think the management were a bit surprised how little Corona and home working affected productivity and so decided to embrace it. 

[LukeSkywalker 7,595]

@DanielFrank: do you work for some start-up IT company where they mention free fruit and coffee as a benefit? 

[MikeMelga 7,240]

3 hours ago, Dembo said:

I think the management were a bit surprised how little Corona and home working affected productivity and so decided to embrace it. 

That highly depends on the type of IT work and on each individual. I saw huge dips in productivity from some team members, to the point they were forced 100% back to office, while others kept it optional.

[fraufruit 41,924]

4 hours ago, karin_brenig said:

I'm lucky - external, old, very valuable skillset, don't need the money - so I told them I'll come in once a month

 

Another scenario entirely. 

[Dembo 493]

8 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

That highly depends on the type of IT work and on each individual. I saw huge dips in productivity from some team members, to the point they were forced 100% back to office, while others kept it optional.

 

That's true, and I've struggled to work at home before, though not this time. I know one guy who says he absolutely cannot get anything done at home and so has been in the office mostly by himself for the last couple of years. We also have people who need to work with electronic devices and then it's a bit impractical. IT is a broad church.

 

But if you're ever being forced to do something so the Chef can look over your shoulder and check you're working, then that's a crap situation for all.