A work-from-home finance manager has lost her unfair dismissal claim after relocating to France despite being explicitly warned that the move would cost her job.
Iryna Malyk was employed by Teleperformance Contact when she ignored what an employment tribunal described as an “express instruction” not to move outside the UK while continuing in her role.
Her case was dismissed following a tribunal hearing in Bristol, the city where she had been living and working before the dispute.
According to the hearing, Ms Malyk’s manager told her the arrangement would not be “financially viable” for the business and could create legal complications.
She was also told she would need to resign if she went ahead with the move to France, but she challenged the company’s position and relocated anyway.
Teleperformance Contact later dismissed the finance executive after she continued carrying out her duties from across the Channel.
The tribunal heard that Ms Malyk had joined the company in May 2022 as a European regional finance business partner.
Teleperformance Contact provides outsourced visa services for governments, including those in the UK, France and Germany.
Bristol-based Iryna Malyk, who worked from home, tried to sue for unfair dismissal after being warned that she would be sacked if she moved to France but did so anyway
In her contract, her home and the address of the company were both in Bristol.
Ms Malyk’s ‘principal’ place of work was at home, but she was also required to travel into the office until it closed in September 2022.
In late 2023, a big contract in France was lost, which affected Teleperformance Contact’s operations there.
Ms Malyk’s husband got a new job in France in early 2024, so she booked a meeting with her line manager to discuss relocating there.
Michael Aouate told her she could not work from the country with a UK-based employment contract and there was not a position there available to her.
The tribunal was told: ‘In a follow-up call on June 26, Mr Aouate told [Ms Malyk] that she could not work on UK projects in France on a permanent basis because the laws are different and this would cause legal and tax issues.
‘He did not provide specific detail about the laws he was referring to.
‘Later on June 26, [Ms Malyk] emailed [Drussila Solomon, head of HR in the UK] saying that due to personal circumstances she was moving to France in July, and was planning to continue to work from home from there.
‘She said Mr Aouate had told her he wouldn’t be able to perform her duties from France as it would mean breach of certain law.’
Ms Malyk said that she believed her contract was ‘fully remote’, so she thought that she could ‘work from anywhere’.
Ms Solomon told her that she needed permission from her line manager to work in another country.
In July, Mr Aouate said that it was not ‘financially viable’ to employ her in France, and the business did not ‘offer the facility for employees to be able to work remotely outside the country they were employed from’.
He said that it was a ‘reasonable management instruction’ to require her to work in the UK.
Mr Aouate asked her to review her decision to move to France, but added that if she decided to go ahead with it, she needed to resign.
Ms Malyk said she ‘disagreed’ with the decision and claimed that the instruction to work in the UK was a change to her contract.
The tribunal heard: ‘She continued to work from France under her existing contract, and explained in evidence that it was a busy time coming up to month end and so she needed to continue with her duties.’
An investigation meeting was held at the end of July in which she said there was ‘nothing to investigate’ because she had moved to France and ‘was not hiding this’.
She was suspended in August and her line manager told the tribunal this was due to a risk the company would be pursued by French authorities for breaking the law.
Following a disciplinary hearing, Ms Malyk was sacked for ignoring the company’s ‘express instruction’ not to carry out her role from France.
The company did not find she had committed gross misconduct and her appeal against her sacking has been dismissed.
Employment Judge Hazel Oliver found the reason Ms Malyk was sacked was ‘not trivial’, as the firm believed it would not be complying with French law if she lived in the country permanently while working on a UK contract.
The judge said her contract ‘expressly states that [Ms Malyk] will work from her home in the UK’ and she ‘was insisting on working from France’.
She continued: ‘[Ms Malyk] argues that she had acted openly and did not believe there was gross misconduct, and says [Teleperformance Contact’s] actions were disproportionate.
‘I do not agree. The instruction was reasonable in the circumstances, and the disciplinary action was pursued because [Ms Malyk] was continuing to refuse to comply despite having been warned about the consequences.’
