Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Solutions Consultant

A Technology firm

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00044231-001

19/05/2021

The employee was dismissed on grounds of serious misconduct as he had relocated to work remotely from Spain. The employee states that he was treated unfairly. The employer outlines that it was entitled to dismiss the employee because of insubordination and serious misconduct.

The employee outlined that he started working for the respondent in June 2020 at a time he was in Latvia. He then returned to Ireland and then moved to Spain, to work remotely. He raised his location of work with a manager who gave him the impression that he could be located in Spain. He said that the employer issued a temporary relocation policy, allowing employees to be based abroad for up to five months.

In reply to the employer, the employee said that he could not understand the cybersecurity risks as everyone then was working from home. He mentioned his location at a work meeting in March 2021 and the employer asked him to re-locate back to Ireland. He had difficulties making arrangements to do so on a long-term basis, for example to find larger accommodation in Ireland to work from home. He did not think the matter was serious enough to warrant dismissal. He was dismissed on the 4th May 2021. He signed a contract for his new employer on the day of the hearing.

The employer outlined that the employee’s employment was ended on grounds of insubordination and serious misconduct. The employer issued a temporary relocation policy which allowed employees to relocate for longer than 30 days to countries where it had an office; this did not include Spain. The employee working in Spain presented risks to the employer, relating to cybersecurity, insurance and tax. The employee had returned from Latvia to Ireland, then to Spain and back to Ireland. The issue arose when the employee returned to live in Spain. The HR Manager had not given permission for this. The employer became aware of this when the employee disclosed it at a work meeting. The employee’s manager outlined that the employee was informed that he had to relocate to Ireland, but he gave no indication of when he would do so. He could have returned to Ireland and that would have been the end of the matter. The employer said that the employee did not make a formal request for unpaid leave. It was entitled under the disciplinary procedure to move straight to dismissal.

It is clear that the employee performed well in the role, albeit this issue arose of the employee’s location. From the employee’s dealings with management, there was a lack of clarity regarding whether the employee had permission to move to Spain. He should, perhaps, have asked the question whether he could remain in Spain once the Temporary Relocation policy issued, as this would not allow him to relocate to that country. I can understand how the line manager was concerned to learn that the employee had returned to Spain. The employee misjudged the gravity of the issue and the employer’s concern. This was not, however, a matter of gross misconduct or serious misconduct. I see this more as a capacity issue, akin to not having a work permit. I find that the employee was unfairly treated as he was dismissed on grounds of gross/serious misconduct when this did not apply. I recommend redress of €3,000.

CA-00044231-001

I recommend that the employer pay to the employee redress of €3,000.

Industrial Relations Act / remote working