An Employment Tribunal has provided a timely reminder that remote working is not the same as having the right to work from anywhere in the world. In Malyk v Teleperformance Contact Ltd, the Tribunal rejected an unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee who relocated to France and continued working there despite being told that her UK employer could not accommodate the arrangement. The decision highlights that employees cannot assume that a fully remote role permits them to work overseas without their employer’s agreement.
Background
The claimant, Ms Malyk, was employed as a Regional Finance Business Partner under a UK employment contract. Although she initially worked on a hybrid basis, she worked entirely from home after the company’s Bristol office closed. In June 2024, after her husband secured employment in France, she informed her employer that she wished to relocate there and continue working remotely. The employer refused the request, explaining that it could not employ her in France under a UK contract and citing legal, tax and operational concerns.
Following discussions and a formal outcome letter, the employer confirmed that it could not accommodate her request and issued a management instruction requiring her to work from the UK. Despite this, Ms Malyk moved to France and continued working remotely, after which disciplinary proceedings were commenced. She was ultimately dismissed and her subsequent claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract were unsuccessful.
The decision
The Tribunal found that the claimant’s contract required her to work from home within the UK. While the contract did not expressly prohibit overseas working, the Tribunal relied on a range of contractual provisions, including the claimant’s Bristol home address, the designation of her workplace as a “home office”, references to UK employment law throughout the contract and the requirement to have the right to work in the UK.
The Tribunal also accepted that the employer’s concerns about French legal and regulatory obligations constituted a substantial and potentially fair reason for dismissal. It held that the instruction to work from the UK was a reasonable management instruction and that the claimant had chosen not to comply with it. In those circumstances, the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer, and the claimant’s dismissal was fair.
Implications for employers
This decision provides a useful reminder that remote working arrangements and international remote working are not necessarily the same thing. For organisations operating across multiple jurisdictions, the case also underlines the importance of having a consistent and well-documented approach to requests to work abroad.
The Tribunal placed weight on the employer’s concerns regarding local legal obligations and accepted that those concerns could justify dismissal where no viable alternative arrangement was available. Clear policies, early engagement with employees who wish to relocate, and a documented record of the factors considered when assessing overseas working requests are likely to remain important safeguards if the rejection of an overseas working arrangement is later challenged.
Many thanks to Alex Vincent for all her help in preparing this post