Finance director loses unfair dismissal claim after moving to France

A finance director lost her job after moving to France despite a direct warning from Teleperformance Contact that doing so would end her employment. She is now suing for unfair dismissal but has been rejected by the tribunal in Bristol where she lived and worked. Iryna Malyk ignored an express instruction from her boss Michael Aouate which stated she must resign if she relocated outside the UK. The company argued it was not financially viable to employ her there while holding a British contract.

Malyk began working remotely for Teleperformance Contact in May 2022 as a European regional finance business partner. Her home address and the official company address were both located in Bristol. She worked from that house until the office closed its doors in September 2022. The firm handles outsourced visa services for governments across Europe including operations in France and Germany.

Trouble started in early 2024 when Malyk's husband secured a new job in France. She booked a meeting with Aouate to discuss moving there permanently. During that call on June 26, the manager told her she could not work on UK projects from French soil because different laws would cause legal and tax issues. He did not provide specific details about those regulations during their conversation. Later that same day Malyk emailed Drussila Solomon head of HR in the UK to explain her personal circumstances and planned move. She wrote that Aouate had warned moving meant breaching certain laws.

Malyk believed her contract was fully remote so she thought she could work from anywhere. Solomon insisted she needed permission from her line manager before working in another country. In July Aouate stated it was not financially viable to employ her in France and the business did not offer facilities for employees to work remotely outside their employment location. He called the requirement to stay in the UK a reasonable management instruction.

Malyk disagreed with this decision and claimed the order to work in the UK changed her contract terms. She continued working from France under her existing agreement because it was a busy time approaching month end. An investigation meeting held at the end of July found nothing to investigate since she had not hidden her move. In August the company suspended her after Aouate told the tribunal there was a risk they would be pursued by French authorities for breaking the law.

A disciplinary hearing followed and Malyk was sacked for ignoring the express instruction not to carry out her role from France. The company did not find she had committed gross misconduct so her appeal against dismissal was dismissed. Employment Judge Hazel Oliver found the reason for firing her was not trivial because the firm believed they would not comply with French law if she lived there permanently while on a UK contract.

The judge noted the contract expressly states Malyk will work from her home in the UK and she was insisting on working from France instead. She argued that acting openly meant no gross misconduct occurred and claimed the company actions were disproportionate. I do not agree with this assessment according to the tribunal ruling.

A directive issued under specific conditions stood as a reasonable course of action. The decision to move forward with discipline came down to one stubborn fact: Ms Malyk kept refusing orders even after clear warnings laid out the potential fallout. She ignored the gravity of the situation. And that refusal was not an accident or a misunderstanding. It was deliberate.