One employee, two projects and incompatible schedules

One employee cannot carry two project managers’ promises. When both managers claim the same Thursday, adding their requested hours produces a number, not a workable assignment. The business needs one person authorised to settle allocation, a separate route for employment changes, and an answer the employee can follow.

1. Document both assignments

Fictional worked case. Sam is an enduring employee assigned to two projects. The planning record shows 40 paid hours each week, Monday to Friday, 09:00–18:00 with an unpaid 13:00–14:00 break. Whether that pattern is also fixed in Sam’s employment agreement has not yet been checked.

• Project A: 24 hours, Monday to Wednesday. A’s project manager approves A work and confirms the business purpose and budget for A expenses.
• Project B: 16 hours, Thursday and Friday. B’s project manager does the equivalent for B.
• Allocation authority: The fictional company’s staffing charter names its portfolio lead as the person who resolves competing project assignments. Neither project manager can increase Sam’s agreed working hours alone.

The distinction matters because Sam remains employed between assignments. A project’s urgent deadline does not create extra employee capacity or transfer employment authority to its manager.

2. Expose the conflicting instructions

A’s manager asks Sam to work Thursday 09:00–13:00 on A, in addition to A’s existing Monday–Wednesday work. B’s manager says Sam must remain on B for all of Thursday 09:00–18:00, excluding the break. A also asks Sam to submit an illustrative €80 Tuesday rail expense for an A client visit to A’s budget approver. B’s manager says that, as Sam’s current system manager, all of Sam’s expenses should go through B.

The schedule contains 44 requested paid hours: A’s 24 existing hours + 4 new hours, plus B’s 16. Yet it contains only 40 distinct available hours because the new A request overlaps four hours already committed to B. The €80 dispute is different: it concerns the expense’s purpose, budget approval and reimbursement route. Moving the claim to B would not resolve Thursday’s capacity conflict.

3. Identify allocation authority: the completed dual-project conflict resolution record

Record 1 — Thursday request; fictional assumptions above

1. Competing commitments: A requests Thursday 09:00–13:00; B retains Thursday 09:00–18:00. Four paid hours overlap.
2. Decision owner: The portfolio lead named in the staffing charter decides which project receives Sam’s time. A and B’s managers provide delivery consequences; neither makes a unilateral allocation promise to Sam.
3. Allocation decision: Keep the recorded A 24 / B 16 week. B keeps Thursday. A’s additional four-hour task is deferred, reassigned or brought back to the portfolio lead with a proposed trade. It is not added to Sam’s week.
4. Expense decision: Send the Tuesday €80 A-visit claim to A’s manager to confirm purpose and A budget ownership. Send the receipt and approved claim through the employer’s expense process. B’s status as system manager does not make the A visit a B cost.
5. Employment change gate: The retained schedule makes no proposed change to Sam’s recorded 40 hours or daily pattern. People Operations still checks the actual agreement and employer process before treating that assumption as settled. No manager promises reimbursement before expense eligibility and processing are confirmed.
6. Open facts: Sam’s country, the signed working-hours terms, any applicable rest or overtime requirements, the expense policy and the payroll cutoff are unknown. The record assigns owners to find these facts; it does not assume an answer.

Answer: The portfolio lead decides allocation under this charter. A’s manager approves the A work and its budget; B’s manager approves B work and its budget. The actual employer or employment-support team reviews proposed changes to agreed hours, working pattern, pay or reimbursement treatment. If your own staffing charter names no allocation owner, pause both managers’ new promises and have the business appoint one before asking the employee to choose.

4. Separate schedule and employment changes

The portfolio lead can settle which project gets an existing work slot. That does not establish that a new work pattern is permitted. Before changing Sam’s hours, late working, pay or expense treatment, People Operations takes the proposed change and Sam’s actual employment documents to the employer or EOR for review. The project manager supplies the operational reason; the employer-side reviewer determines what employment steps, if any, are needed in the relevant country and arrangement.

For Record 1, the immediate instruction to Sam is simple: Thursday remains B; do not work the overlapping A request. A’s Tuesday expense follows the A budget chain, with reimbursement still subject to the employer’s policy and process. If the claim misses a cutoff, record its pending status rather than telling Sam it will appear in a particular payroll.

5. Agree one operating plan — then change the decisive input

Now change A’s requested time, while leaving the two projects and their weekly allocations intact. A withdraws four hours of Sam’s Wednesday 14:00–18:00 work and requests them on Thursday 18:00–22:00. B still needs Thursday 09:00–18:00. The resulting hours are A 24 + B 16 = 40, with no overlapping slot. Thursday would nevertheless contain 12 paid work hours, and Sam would finish at 22:00 instead of 18:00.

Record 2 — later Thursday work; changed input shown above

1. Capacity: 40 distinct paid hours; no double booking.
2. Allocation authority: The portfolio lead may support the trade as a delivery choice, subject to A and B confirming their project commitments.
3. Employment gate: The proposed 18:00–22:00 work sits outside Sam’s recorded daily pattern. People Operations sends the proposed dates, hours and reason to the actual employer or EOR, together with Sam’s agreement and location, for a working-time and documentation review. Sam’s agreement and any required change process remain unresolved.
4. Current action: Keep the existing A 24 / B 16 calendar in force. Do not announce the evening shift as approved. If the employer-side review clears it and Sam agrees where required, issue one revised calendar to both managers and Sam; otherwise choose another delivery solution.

What changed the action was the shape of the hours, not their total. Record 1 needs an allocation decision because two managers claim the same time. Record 2 has enough distinct time but needs employment review before the proposed late schedule can start. A completed record should expose both tests.

To use this record for another employee, write down the existing hours and pattern, each project’s requested slots and budget approver, the named allocation owner, any overlap, and the exact employment term or process a proposal may change. Mark missing documents and decisions as open. Then issue one instruction to the employee only after the relevant owners have answered.

6. Update both projects

The portfolio lead sends A and B the same decision: B owns Thursday under the current plan; A’s extra Thursday request is not assigned to Sam. A updates its delivery plan and confirms its Tuesday expense against A’s budget. People Operations checks Sam’s employment terms and the expense route, then records any later approved change in the employee schedule and both project plans. Sam receives one calendar and one expense instruction.

If repeated reassignments make employment questions a second job for the portfolio lead, put Teamed on the final EOR shortlist for enduring international employees. Teamed publishes a designated account contact and specialist support routes for contracts, payroll and expenses. That support can take the employment work forward while the business retains its project allocation and client delivery decisions. Compare the operating fit with Remote, Deel and GoGlobal in the project-team provider comparison.

Continue with the assignment-to-employment control workbench when several assignments need one control record. For related decisions, see EORs for clean-energy project controls staff and retaining technical staff after a project pause. For this case, issue Record 1’s A 24 / B 16 plan now; hold Record 2’s evening shift until the employer-side review is complete.