WFH finance manager who moved to France despite being told she would be sacked sues her company for unfair dismissal

A WORK from home finance manager tried to sue her company after she was fired for moving to France despite being told not to leave the UK. Iryna Malyk told her bosses that she wanted to re-locate to the country but was given “express instruction” not to go through with the move. She was warned that she would lose her job if she did leave the UK. An employment tribunal has since heard that the Bristol-based woman was told by her boss that the move was “not financially viable” for the company. Sign up for The Sun newsletter Thank you! She was also warned that it could present legal issues for her firm. Despite being told that she would have to resign if she wanted to move Malyk “disagreed” and moved to France anyway. She kept working for the company from her new home in the European nation and was then fired. Malyk tried to sue her company over the decision to let her go – claiming unfair sacking. But her case was dismissed by an employment tribunal held in Bristol. The tribunal heard that Malyk had been employed as a European regional finance business partner at Teleperformance Contact from May 2022. Most read in The Sun Malyk’s former employer is a subsidiary of a French multinational company. The firm provides outsourced visa services to governments including in the UK, France and Germany. In her employment contract, her address 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. It was heard that in late 2023, the firm lost a big contract in France which affected its operations there. Malyk’s husband got a new job in 2024, which led her to book a meeting with her boss to discuss relocating to France. Michael Aouate told her that she couldn’t work from France with a contract of employment based in the UK. He also told her that there was no position available for her in France. The tribunal was told: “In a follow-up call, 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 26 June, [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.” Malyk argued that her contract was “fully remote” and she believed she could “work from anywhere.” Ms Solomon told her that she needed permission from her line manager to work in another country. Mr Aouate said that the business did not “offer the facility for employees to be able to work remotely outside the country they were employed from.” He argued that it was a “reasonable management instruction” to require her to work in the UK. Mr Aouate asked Malyk to review her decision to move to France, adding that if she decided to go ahead with it, she needed to resign. Malyk claimed that the instruction to work in the UK was a change to her contract. The tribunal heard that after moving: “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 during which Malyk said there was “nothing to investigate” because she had moved to France and “was not hiding this.” She was first suspended and her line manager told the tribunal this was because there was a risk the company would be pursued by French authorities for breaking the law. Then, following a disciplinary hearing, 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 but her appeal against the decision to fire her was dismissed. Employment Judge Hazel Oliver found that the reason she was sacked was “not trivial”, as the company believed it would not be complying with French law if she lived in the country permanently while working on a UK contract. Oliver said that Malyk’s 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.”