Workplace Relations Commission rejects unfair dismissal claim by employee who worked from India without approval

At a glance

• The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) dismiss unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee working outside of Ireland without approval.
• The employer deemed the employee's refusal to attend the office as a resignation from employment.
• The Adjudication Officer placed weight on the contractual place of work, PwC’s overseas working policy, access card and IP address data, and that PWC had offered the employee multiple opportunities to attend investigation meetings.

Background

The Complainant commenced employment with PwC in February 2022. Their contract stated that their normal place of work was PwC’s Dublin office, or a client's premises, as directed.

PwC’s 'Empowered Working Day' policy required employees to work and be based out of Ireland. A separate 'Together Anywhere' policy allowed employees to apply to work overseas for limited periods, up to 30 working days in one country in a rolling 12-month period, subject to approval. The Complainant had previously used that policy to work abroad in January 2024, which was relevant to a later WRC finding that they understood the approval requirements.

Remote work from India

The Complainant successfully applied to work outside of Ireland pursuant to the 'Together Anywhere' policy for a total period of 30 days in January 2024.

The Complainant was placed on a performance improvement plan in June 2024. After the Complainant declined to attend an in-person meeting to discuss the completion of their performance improvement plan in November 2024, their team leader raised with HR that they had not seen the Complainant in the office for some time.

PwC reviewed access card and IP address data, which indicated that the Complainant had been working from India since 30 September 2024. The Complainant initially denied being in India and maintained that they were working from Dublin.

PwC invited the Complainant to attend an in-person investigation meeting in Dublin and reiterated that he was required to return to Ireland to work and to participate in the process. The Complainant did not attend the planned meeting or a subsequent rescheduling and admitted via telephone he had been working from India. The Complainant raised issues regarding their line manager and stated that they would not return to work in the office.

On 2 December 2024, PwC wrote to the complainant confirming that as he had not attended the office since the 30 September, the firm had no option but to accept that they had resigned from their employment in PwC.

WRC decision

The WRC preferred PwC’s evidence that the complainant had worked from India without authorisation and rejected the complainant’s assertion approval was in place, as there was no documentary evidence of approval. The Complainant's familiarity with the overseas working policy was acknowledged.

The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant’s refusal to return to Ireland was not temporary or dependent on a particular event. Rather, the evidence showed that they intended to remain in India indefinitely while continuing to work remotely, notwithstanding the contractual requirement to be based in Ireland.

The WRC was satisfied that PwC acted reasonably by seeking to have the complainant return to Ireland, inviting them to attend investigation meetings and giving them opportunities to engage. The Adjudication Officer concluded that the complainant was "the author of their own predicament" and that PwC had demonstrated substantial grounds justifying the termination of the employment relationship. The termination of the employment relationship resulted from the complainant's 'fundamental breach of contract and refusal to perform his duties from his contractual place of work in Ireland'. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore not well founded.

Remote working considerations for employers

This decision is a useful reminder that hybrid working is not the same as an unrestricted right to work from anywhere. Where an employer requires employees to be based in Ireland, that requirement should be clearly reflected in the contract and supported by a practical policy setting out the parameters of any overseas working arrangements.

The case also highlights the importance of clear policy frameworks. PwC’s position was strengthened by clear contractual and policy wording, evidence of the employee’s working location, repeated requests for him to return to Ireland, and opportunities for him to participate in an investigation. Employers facing similar issues should ensure that they investigate the facts carefully, put concerns to the employee, and keep a written record of the steps taken before reaching any final decision.

Key takeaway

Where an employee unilaterally works overseas, misrepresents their location and then refuses to return to the contractual place of work, the WRC may accept that this amounts to a fundamental breach of contract. Clear documentation, consistent application of policy and a fair process remain essential.