An employment tribunal has rejected a claim of unfair dismissal brought by a finance manager who moved to France while continuing to work remotely for her UK-based employer, Teleperformance Contact. The tribunal found the company's decision to dismiss the employee was reasonable given her refusal to comply with company instructions and potential legal implications.
Iryna Malyk, who was employed as a European regional finance business partner from May 2022, worked from home for Teleperformance Contact, a company that provides outsourced visa services to governments. Her contract stipulated her primary work location was her home in the UK.
In late 2023, following a significant contract loss in France that impacted the company's operations there, Ms. Malyk’s husband secured new employment in France. In early 2024, she informed her line manager, Michael Aouate, of her intention to relocate to France.
Mr. Aouate informed Ms. Malyk that working from France on a UK employment contract was not feasible due to differing laws and potential legal and tax issues. He stated that Teleperformance Contact did not have a position available for her in France and that it was not financially viable to employ her there remotely from France. He advised her that she would need to resign if she proceeded with the move.
Despite this, Ms. Malyk emailed the head of HR in the UK, Drussila Solomon, in late June, stating her intention to move to France in July and continue working from home. She believed her contract was fully remote and allowed her to work from anywhere. Ms. Solomon reiterated that she required permission from her line manager to work in another country.
In July, Mr. Aouate reiterated that the company could not support her working remotely from France and considered it a reasonable management instruction for her to work from the UK. He requested she reconsider her decision to move, warning that if she proceeded, she would need to resign.
Ms. Malyk disagreed with this instruction, asserting it constituted a change to her contract. She proceeded to move to France in July and continued to work under her existing contract, citing the busy month-end period as a reason to maintain her duties.
An investigation meeting was held at the end of July. Ms. Malyk stated she was not hiding her move. In August, she was suspended, with her line manager citing concerns about the company potentially facing legal action from French authorities for employing someone in France on a UK contract.
Following a disciplinary hearing, Ms. Malyk was dismissed for disregarding the company’s explicit instruction not to perform her role from France. The company did not classify her actions as gross misconduct. Her subsequent appeal against the dismissal was also denied.
Employment Judge Hazel Oliver ruled that the reason for dismissal was substantial, as the company genuinely believed that allowing Ms. Malyk to work from France on a UK contract would violate French law. The judge noted that Ms. Malyk's contract specified working from her UK home and that she insisted on working from France. The tribunal concluded that the management instruction was reasonable and the disciplinary action was justified due to Ms. Malyk's continued refusal to comply after being warned of the consequences.