Unauthorised overseas working justified termination for breach of contract.

The Complainant claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed. He said that he had left Ireland in September 2024 but had continued to work as normal from India. His position was that his team leader had approved his working from India, although this was disputed by the Respondent. He denied saying that he was in Dublin while actually being in India. He accepted that there was a 30-day overseas working policy but maintained that he had permission to work abroad. He also argued that the dismissal was disproportionate and procedurally unfair. He complained that IP address/location data had been used against him without advance notification. He said he had sought work since dismissal, although he accepted under cross-examination that he had applied for approximately one role per month in Ireland and only for vice-president roles.

The Respondent said that the Complainant’s contract required him to work from its Dublin office or from client premises, with hybrid working subject to policy. It relied on its “Empowered Working Day” and “Together Anywhere” policies, which required employees to remain based in Ireland unless prior approval was obtained for overseas working. The Complainant had previously used that policy and was therefore aware that overseas work was limited to 30 working days in one country in a rolling 12-month period. The Respondent said that access-card and IP address data showed that the Complainant had worked from India from September 2024 without approval. When challenged, he initially denied being in India. The Respondent repeatedly asked him to return to Ireland for meetings and to resume work from his contractual location, but he refused and indicated that he wished to continue working remotely from India.

The Adjudicating found that the complaint was not well founded. She accepted that the Complainant’s contract required him to be based in Ireland and to attend work in accordance with the Respondent’s policies. She preferred the Respondent’s evidence that he had worked from India from September 2024 without authorisation and had initially denied doing so. The Adjudicator rejected his assertion that the Team Leader had approved the arrangement, noting that no documentary evidence supported it and that the Complainant was familiar with the formal overseas working approval process. His refusal to return to Ireland was found not to be temporary but an intention to remain in India indefinitely while continuing to work remotely. This amounted to a fundamental repudiation of an essential contractual term. The Respondent had substantial grounds to terminate, and the unfair dismissal complaint failed.

1. Ensure that remote-working and overseas-working rules were clearly recorded in contracts and policies. Hybrid working should not be left informal. The place of work, office-attendance expectations, approval requirements and maximum permitted overseas-working days should be set out expressly.
2. Note that where an employee was suspected of working abroad without permission, the employer should investigate carefully before acting. Access-card records, IT/IP data, communications and meeting attendance should be gathered and put to the employee. The employee should be given a fair chance to explain, confirm their location, produce any alleged approval, and return to the contractual place of work.
3. Separate the working-location issue from any grievance raised by the employee. If the employee alleged bullying, harassment or stress, the employer should offer to investigate that under the relevant policy, but that did not necessarily excuse refusal to comply with contractual attendance requirements. 
   

The full case can be found here.