A finance manager who moved to France while employed by a UK-based company, despite being warned that doing so would result in her dismissal, has had her claim for unfair dismissal rejected.
Iryna Malyk, who worked for Teleperformance Contact as a European regional finance business partner from May 2022, was based at home in Bristol. Her contract listed both her home address and the company's address as being in Bristol. Until September 2022, she was required to travel to the office, but her primary place of work became remote.
In late 2023, Teleperformance Contact lost a significant contract in France, impacting its operations there. In early 2024, Ms. Malyk's husband secured new employment in France, prompting her to discuss relocation plans with her line manager, Michael Aouate.
Mr. Aouate informed Ms. Malyk that she could not work from France under a UK employment contract, citing that it was not financially viable for the company and would create legal issues. He also stated that there was no available position for her in France. He advised her that if she proceeded with the move, she would need to resign.
Despite this directive, Ms. Malyk emailed the head of HR in the UK, Drussila Solomon, stating she was moving to France in July due to personal circumstances and planned to continue working remotely. She acknowledged that Mr. Aouate had informed her that performing duties from France would contravene certain laws.
Ms. Malyk contended that her contract was fully remote and believed she could work from anywhere. Ms. Solomon reiterated that she required permission from her line manager to work in another country.
In July, Mr. Aouate explained that employing her in France was not financially viable and that the business did not support employees working remotely from outside their country of employment. He characterized the instruction to work in the UK as a reasonable management directive and asked her to reconsider her decision to move, warning that she would need to resign if she went ahead.
Ms. Malyk stated she disagreed with the decision and argued that the instruction to work in the UK constituted a change to her contract. She continued to work from France under her existing contract, citing the busy month-end period as a reason she needed to continue her duties.
An investigation meeting was held at the end of July. Ms. Malyk maintained there was nothing to investigate as she had openly moved to France. She was suspended in August. Her line manager cited the risk of the company facing legal action from French authorities for potential breaches of law as the reason for the suspension.
Following a disciplinary hearing, Ms. Malyk was dismissed for disregarding the company's express 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 rejected.
Employment Judge Hazel Oliver ruled that the reason for dismissal was not trivial, as the company believed employing Ms. Malyk in France on a UK contract would violate French law. The judge noted that Ms. Malyk's contract stipulated she would work from her home in the UK, and she insisted on working from France. The tribunal found the management instruction to be reasonable and the disciplinary action justified because Ms. Malyk continued to refuse compliance after being warned of the consequences.