Usually it will be clear whether or not an employee expects to
spend more than 40% of his or her working time at a particular
workplace over a period of 24 months. Where there is some
uncertainty you should decide cases on the facts that you can
uncover.
An obvious starting point is what the employer has told the
employee. Another point to consider may be whether the employee has
moved home as a result of the change in workplace. An employee may
be less likely to relocate for a posting that is expected to last
for less than 24 months and more likely to relocate for one that is
expected to last longer. That is not to say that, if someone does
move home as a result of a change of workplace, it necessarily
means they expect the new workplace to be permanent, or that if
they do not move home they necessarily expect the new workplace to
be temporary. Moving home is not a test, it is only one factor to
be taken into consideration, but it is an important one.
You should look at each case in the round and consider not
only any statements made by the employee and the employer, but also
the expected duration of any project to which the employee is
seconded and any agreements between the parties, whether or not
they have been committed to writing. You may wish to look in more
detail at any case in which the employee spends more than 24 months
at a workplace and we had been told that he or she would not.
In some cases there may have been a change in circumstances
that has led to a change in the length of the secondment. The
workplace will be a temporary workplace during any time in which
the reasonable expectation was that the secondment would be for a
period not exceeding 24 months, see
EIM32080. Therefore we cannot conclude
in all cases that a continuation of the secondment beyond the 24
month limit must mean that the workplace could not have been a
temporary workplace at some stage.
This is illustrated by example
EIM32101.
