Material Change of Duties

What a material change of duties is

Material change of duties (تغيير مهام العامل الجوهرية) is the assignment of a worker to work that differs materially from the work agreed in the contract. It is governed by Article 60 of the Saudi Labor Law (نظام العمل), a single sentence that carries several rules, some of which are easy to drop when the Article is paraphrased.

It appears in decisions that look organisational: redistributing work after a colleague resigns, merging two jobs, or giving a new role to someone whose department has been restructured. Each decision of that kind raises a question: is what the worker will do afterwards a different job in substance?

The text of Article 60 of the Labor Law

Here is the Arabic text of Article 60 of the Labor Law, which opens with a reservation in favour of Article 38 of the Labor Law:

مع عدم الإخلال بما تضمنته المادة (الثامنة والثلاثون) من هذا النظام، لا يجوز تكليف العامل بعمل يختلف اختلافًا جوهريًا عن العمل المتفق عليه بغير موافقته الكتابية، إلا في حالات الضرورة التي قد تقتضيها ظروف عارضة ولمدة لا تتجاوز ثلاثين يومًا في السنة.

The English rendering is ours, not an official translation. Without prejudice to what Article 38 of the Labor Law contains, the worker may not be assigned work that differs materially from the agreed work without the worker’s written consent, except in cases of necessity that exceptional circumstances may require, and for a period not exceeding thirty days in the year.

Royal Decree M/44, in force since 19 February 2025, did not amend Article 60 of the Labor Law. The Article makes four provisions:

• The basic prohibition. The worker may not be assigned work that differs materially from the agreed work.
• Written consent. The prohibition lifts with the worker’s consent, and the text requires that it be in writing.
• The exception for necessity. The prohibition may be departed from without consent in cases of necessity arising from exceptional circumstances.
• The time limit. The period of this exception may not exceed thirty days in the year.

What makes the difference material?

Article 60 of the Labor Law sets no test for measuring a material difference, and in the sources we reviewed we found no list or criterion that spells it out. The text compares the work that was agreed with the work now assigned, and it does not mention the job title. The text does not say that a change of title alone changes the position, and keeping the title while changing what the worker actually does does not take the case outside the Article.

Anyone who wants to compare before a decision can examine the following factors. They are factors for examination, not a test taken from the text:

• The nature of the tasks. Does the worker do the same thing on a wider scale, or something of a different kind?
• The skill required. Does the new work need a qualification or training that the contract did not require?
• Where the work sits in the structure. Does the person the worker supervises, or the person who supervises the worker, change?
• The time. Does the new work take the greater part of the worker’s time, or only an incidental part of it?

An accountant who is asked to help review stock sheets for a week before the stocktake is not in the position of an accountant who is made storekeeper. The difference between the two cases is not written in the Article, and assessing it depends on the facts.

Article 38 of the Labor Law at the head of Article 60

Article 60 of the Labor Law begins with a reservation in favour of Article 38 of the Labor Law. That provision bars the employer from employing the worker in a profession other than the one recorded in the worker’s work permit, and it prohibits the worker from working outside their own profession before the statutory procedures for changing the profession have been taken.

The two Articles are examined alongside one another, so the worker’s written consent is not enough by itself where the change goes beyond the profession recorded in the permit. They work together: Article 60 of the Labor Law protects the worker from a change of work without their agreement, and Article 38 of the Labor Law ties the profession to the permit. The procedure and its conditions are set out under change of profession, which also records that the procedure concerns the worker who is not a Saudi national.

The exception and the annual limit

The exception for necessity has three conditions that apply together: the case must be one of necessity, the necessity must arise from exceptional circumstances, and the period must not exceed thirty days in the year. The text does not say what counts as necessity, and we name no cases.

The limit is annual, not per assignment. Suppose a worker is assigned work that differs materially on three occasions: 14 days, then 9 days, then 8 days. Each occasion is under thirty days, but the total is 14 + 9 + 8 = 31 days, so the thirty first day falls outside the exception. Had the third occasion been 7 days, the total would be 30, which does not exceed the limit. The figures are assumed to show how the calculation works.

Article 10 of the Labor Law provides that periods in the Labor Law are computed on the Hijri calendar unless the contract or the work regulation (لائحة تنظيم العمل) provides otherwise. We found no provision that fixes the start of the year over which the days are added.

Article 58 of the Labor Law also contains a limit of thirty days, for a transfer of the place of work, and it provides that the employer bears the travel and accommodation costs, while Article 60 of the Labor Law says nothing of that. We found no text that says whether the two limits are added together or counted separately.

Example: redistributing work after a resignation

An accountant in a trading establishment is contracted to keep the suppliers’ accounts. A colleague, the storekeeper, resigns, and the accountant is asked to count stock items in the warehouse for three hours of each eight hour day, five days a week. The request is 3 × 5 = 15 hours out of a 40 hour week, which is 37.5% of the accountant’s time.

That share is not a limit in the text, because Article 60 of the Labor Law does not measure by proportion. It does show that the assignment is neither incidental nor marginal, so the question to ask is whether counting stock is work different in substance from keeping suppliers’ accounts. If the answer is yes, the starting point is written consent, and the exception is confined to necessity arising from exceptional circumstances and thirty days in the year. If the task remains part of the work that was agreed, the Article does not apply to it. The answer here depends on what the contract provides, and the example is assumed and does not decide any particular case.

Does a general clause in the contract replace consent?

An employer may write into the contract a general clause that authorises it to assign the worker whatever the needs of the work require. In the sources we reviewed, we found no text that makes such a clause a substitute for written consent to a specific assignment. Article 8 of the Labor Law makes void every term that conflicts with the Labor Law, so the effect of such clauses is a matter for the statutory text and the competent authority.

What does help is a precise job description in the contract. The more exactly the contract describes the work, the easier it is to judge what falls outside it.

How the thirty days are counted

The Article says the period may not exceed thirty days in the year, and it does not say how a day is counted. In the sources we reviewed, we found no text that says whether a day on which the worker did the different work for a few hours counts as a full day, or whether rest days and leave that fall within the assignment are counted.

The simplest course is to record each assignment with its date and number of days, and to add them up, reading the total on the cautious side of the limit. An establishment that has come close to 30 days should ask itself, before any new assignment, whether any balance remains and whether the circumstance is still exceptional.

If the worker is assigned different work without consent

Article 81 of the Labor Law allows the worker to leave work without notice, while keeping all statutory rights, in several cases. Its third item provides that the employer assigns the worker, without the worker’s consent, work that differs materially from the agreed work, contrary to what Article 60 of the Labor Law provides. The Articles on the end of the relationship without notice are explained in our guide to dismissal without an award and leaving work without notice.

So Article 60 of the Labor Law is not only a procedural restriction: a breach of it carries a right of the worker that the Labor Law states. How that right is exercised, when, and how it is proved is a matter for the statutory text and the competent authority, and in the sources we reviewed we found no detail on it.

Where the consent is recorded

In the model contract for indefinite term employment annexed to the Implementing Regulation (اللائحة التنفيذية), clause 14.8 allows the data on the profession and work information, which include the job title and the scope of work, to be amended with the consent of both parties, under the terms and procedures approved through the platform (المنصة). The clause sits in the model for the indefinite term contract, and we found it in none of the other contract models we reviewed. It is qualified by the requirement of no conflict with the Labor Law, so it does not take the place of the written consent that Article 60 of the Labor Law requires.

What resembles a material change of duties and is not one

• Job rotation. A temporary move between jobs to widen experience. Changing an employee’s tasks in a rotation is not a purely administrative step, and Article 60 of the Labor Law applies to it, as noted under job rotation.
• Acting assignment. The giving of additional tasks or a higher role for a known period, which is the subject of acting assignment. It may be different in substance, in which case Article 60 of the Labor Law applies, or it may not be.
• Demotion. Moving the worker down to a lower role. How a penalty differs from a change in the content of the work is covered under demotion.
• Transfer of the place of work. Article 58 of the Labor Law governs the transfer of a worker to another place that requires a change of residence. A change of place and a change of work can arrive in one decision, and then both Articles 58 and 60 of the Labor Law are examined.
• Change of job title. A change to the heading in the structure without a change in what the worker does. The text does not say that a change of title alone brings the case under Article 60 of the Labor Law. What matters is whether the work changes.

Before an assignment decision is signed

The following steps are a practical recommendation and are not drawn from the text of the Article:

• Identify the agreed work. Return to the contract and the job description, because the comparison is between what was agreed and what is now required.
• Name the new work. Write what the worker will do specifically, not in general terms such as “whatever the needs of the work require”.
• Take written consent. Where the difference is material or there is doubt, and before the new work begins.
• If the exception for necessity is used. Record the reason for the necessity, the start and end dates, and the total days used in the year.

Provisions relied on for material change of duties

The provisions relied on are those of the Saudi Labor Law as published by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development: Article 60 (the prohibition, the written consent, the exception for necessity and the thirty day limit), Article 38 (the profession recorded in the work permit), Article 58 (the transfer of the place of work and a separate thirty day limit), Article 81 (the worker’s leaving without notice), Article 8 (terms contrary to the Labor Law) and Article 10 (Hijri periods). From the Implementing Regulation, in the edition published by the same Ministry in April 2025: clause 14.8 of the model indefinite term contract in the annex. Royal Decree M/44 of 1446H, in force since 19 February 2025, did not amend Article 60 of the Labor Law.

This is an explanation of the concept and of the statutory provisions cited, not legal advice.