Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jasch  Asher

Price Waterhouse Coopers

Representatives

Melanie Crowley Mason Hayes & Curran Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00070745-001

11/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00070749-001

11/04/2025

The Complainant alleges he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Respondent. The Respondent contests the claim.

The Complainant took the affirmation and gave his evidence as follows:

He was employed by WRC Ireland until December 2024. The dismissal was procedurally unfair. He left Ireland on 30th September 2024 and he continued to work as normal. At no time was he questioned about working from Indian. Mr. Crofton approved his working from Indian. This is in dispute. In November his pay was stopped.

Under cross examination the Complainant denied that he ever said that he was in Dublin when he was in fact in Indian. He also accepted that there is a 30 day working abroad policy but said that Mr Crofton granted him permission to work abroad. It was accepted that he did not set out that alleged permission in any correspondence with the PWC and specifically with Ms. O Reilly. It was also accepted that he refused to attend in person however he did request an online meeting.  The Complainant denied that he told Ms O’ Reilly that her accommodation was being sold and he had to move back to Indian. He did state today that he was there for family reasons. Those reasons still exist today. On cross examination he stated that the family situation resolved in March 2025. He still lives in Indian. He refused to answer how he is supporting himself until the adjudicator intervened. He then stated that he was living on his saving and when they run out he would try to get a bank loan.

The dismissal was disproportionate.

Location – he was not informed that the data in relation to his IP address – he was not informed that this would be used against him

Mitigation – he has been trying to secure employment. He has been applying for roles regularly, but he has not secured employment yet. He admitted under cross examination that he has applied for approximately one a month in Ireland. He has applied for vice president’s roles only.

The complainant requested that his case be anonymised.  

Ciara O’ Reilly – Affirmation.

Ms. O’ Reilly joined PWC in August 2022. She is a HR business partner. The Respondent is an Irish unlimited company with its registered address at One Spencer Dock, North Wall Quay, Dublin 1. The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 7 February 2022 as a Senior Associate in the Assurance Practice, which she describes as “a regulated part of the business with Chartered Accountants Ireland.”

The Complainant’s contract of employment wherein it states that the normal place of work:

“will be at the firm's premises at One Spencer Dock, North Wall Quay, Dublin 1 or at a client's premises as directed by the Firm.”

The Respondent also operated a discretionary flexible working policy permitting eligible employees to work from home for part of the working week. The contract provided:

“The firm operates an Everyday Flexibility policy to support you to balance your working hours with your life outside work, day to day. Hybrid working is a key aspect of Everyday Flexibility; the expectation is that employees will collocate with their teams at their office location on average two to three days per week”.

“You should be ready and available for work at the agreed time and location (office, client site or home) in line with the firm's standard hours of work supported by the Everyday Flexibility policy and in agreement with your Team Leader/Partner. Should you fail to adhere to the Firm's timekeeping and attendance practices, you may be subject to disciplinary action”.

The contract is governed by the laws of the Republic of Ireland.

The Respondent’s “Everyday Flexibility” policy was later updated and renamed the “Empowered Working Day” policy. This policy provided:

“It is expected that our people will come together with a purpose to work, collaborate, innovate and connect to share moments that matter at their contracted office or a client site working in person at least 3 days per week across Monday-Friday (inclusive) - a baseline expectation to be fair to everyone”

and

“It is expected that employees will continue to work and be based out of Ireland. If for any reason an employee has a requirement to work from an overseas location for a specified period of time this must be requested through and comply with the Together Anywhere Policy. It is also expected that employees will attend and be available to attend their office location as set out in the employment contract or a client site on request”.

The Complainant’s contractual terms clearly required him to be based in Ireland and to attend the Respondent’s offices in Ireland at least two to three days per week on average. She says this was supported by the “Empowered Working Day” policy and that it was an express and/or implied term of employment that the Complainant was required to be based in Ireland.

To the best of the Respondent’s knowledge, the Complainant worked in accordance with the contract for approximately two years.

On 3 November 2023 the Complainant applied under the Respondent’s “Together Anywhere” policy to work outside Ireland for 20 days between 2 January 2024 and 26 January 2024. She says that when the policy was amended to allow staff to request up to 30 days overseas working, the Complainant requested an additional 10 days, which was approved on 16 January 2024.

The “Together Anywhere” policy enabled staff:

“to consider and apply to work overseas for a set period of time (maximum 30 working days in one country per year), linking this with periods of annual leave or travel for other reasons”.

The policy also provided:

“you can work up to but no more than 30 working days in any one country outside Ireland in a rolling 12 month period …You may avail of this policy more than once in a year e.g. splitting the days within the country you visit (not going above 30 in total) (emphasis added) or visiting different countries by approval”.

The policy also provided:

“All usual expectations and policies of the firm apply to you when working from outside Ireland”.

On 6 March 2024 the Complainant’s Team Leader contacted HR seeking information regarding the Complainant’s “Together Anywhere” requests and annual leave requests because the Team Leader had noticed discrepancies in the Respondent’s internal systems relating to annual leave records.

Ms. O’Reilly says that on 12 June 2024 the Complainant sought time off to travel to India for medical appointments. On 18 June 2024 the Complainant was informed he would be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) due to concerns regarding his performance. The Complainant initially objected to setting his own objectives under the PIP and requested that his Coach and supervisor, Mr. Des Crofton, be changed.

Ms. O’Reilly states that she contacted the Complainant on 20 June 2024 to discuss his concerns regarding the PIP. The Complainant informed her he was sick and unable to meet virtually. On 27 June 2024 she met virtually with the Complainant to discuss his concerns regarding the PIP and the development areas to be agreed. The Complainant agreed to discuss the performance objectives and PIP with Mr. Crofton and that the terms of the PIP were subsequently agreed.

On 4 October 2024 the Complainant refused to work on a particular job with a senior manager. She referred to a note made by Mr. Crofton stating:

“He has said the SM treats him badly and is unprofessional and he won't work with him. He has made similar insinuations about the SM and other members of the team in the past (including about me), and I have repeatedly pointed him to the firm’s policies and told him that he needs to make a formal complaint if he feels that he has been treated unfairly. I've been very clear and supportive in telling him that I absolutely want to deal with any grievance he has and have encouraged him to pursue them but as yet, he hasn't done that.”

Following the concerns raised by the Complainant, a partner and senior manager met separately and jointly with the Complainant, and the Respondent understood the matter to have been resolved. The Complainant’s PIP concluded on 1 November 2024. On 6 November 2024 Mr. Crofton invited the Complainant to an in-person meeting on 8 November 2024 at the Respondent’s office in Dublin to discuss the outcome of the PIP. On 8 November 2024 the Complainant declined the meeting approximately ten minutes before it was due to begin, stating he was not in the office. Mr. Crofton rescheduled the meeting for later that same day to allow the Complainant time to attend the office, noting that the Complainant lived approximately five to ten minutes’ walk from the office. When no response was received, Mr. Crofton telephoned the Complainant, who stated he had a cold and could not come into the office. Mr. Crofton asked whether the Complainant had attended the office earlier in the week and the Complainant replied that he had. She says that during this call the Complainant made serious allegations against Mr. Crofton and accused him of bullying him over the previous two years. Mr. Crofton denied the allegations and suggested pausing the conversation and rescheduling for the following week.  Mr. Crofton then contacted HR for guidance and mentioned that he had not actually seen the Complainant in the office for some time. Following this conversation, the Respondent commenced an informal review of the Complainant’s office attendance. His access card data and IP address location data showed that the Complainant had been working from India since 30 September 2024 without the Respondent’s knowledge and contrary to his contract and the Respondent’s policies.

On 12 November 2024 a telephone call took place involving Mr. Crofton, herself and the Complainant during which the Complainant was informed he was being placed on unpaid leave and that his access to systems would be temporarily suspended, pending investigation into concerns regarding office attendance and working location.

The Respondent’s disciplinary policy provides:

“In certain circumstances it may be required to suspend employees on full pay, whilst the process is carried out. Suspension on pay is not considered to be action taken under the disciplinary procedure; it is there to ensure that issues are investigated in a fair and reasonable manner”.

Although the Complainant was told the leave would be unpaid, the Respondent in fact paid him for the entire period.

During the call on 12 November 2024 the Complainant denied being in India and insisted he was working from his home in Dublin. Mr. Crofton asked him to attend the office the following day, but the Complainant stated he could not do so.  Mr. Crofton informed the Complainant that HR data indicated he was in India and requested that he advise when he intended to return to Ireland so that an investigation meeting could be held. No confirmation of a return to Ireland was ever received. On 15 November 2024 the Complainant was invited to attend an in-person investigation meeting scheduled for 19 November 2024. The Complainant replied using what appeared to be an Indian mobile number. In a subsequent telephone conversation with her, the Complainant admitted he had been working from India for some time and said he could not return because his landlord had sold or was in the process of selling his accommodation. The Complainant stated he did not wish to return to work with Mr. Crofton due to alleged harassment and stress and indicated he wished to continue working remotely from India. The Complainant made it clear he had no intention of returning to work in Ireland.

She reiterated to the Complainant that, under the terms of his contract, his place of work was Dublin and that he was expected to return to Ireland to continue working and participate in the investigation meeting. She informed him that any issues between him and Mr. Crofton could be addressed through the Respondent’s policies upon his return.

Ms. O’Reilly says the Complainant responded that he would not return to Ireland and would not attend the investigation meeting. When asked whether he was resigning, the Complainant replied that he was not and that the Respondent would need to dismiss him. She clarified that he was not being dismissed but that the Respondent required him to work in Ireland and attend the office in accordance with his contract.

The Complainant did not attend the investigation meeting scheduled for 19 November 2024.

On 22 November 2024 a further invitation issued requesting that the Complainant attend a rescheduled investigation meeting on 26 November 2024 and offering him the opportunity to raise a complaint against Mr. Crofton under the Dignity at Work Policy. The letter expressly stated:

“that the firm takes allegations of this nature very seriously and that this matter would be investigated on your return to work in Ireland if you wished to avail of this offer”.

The Complainant informed the Respondent that he would not travel to Ireland to attend the meeting. On 2 December 2024 she wrote to the Complainant stating that due to his failure to return to Ireland, and his verbal confirmation that he did not intend to return, the Respondent had no option but to accept that he had tendered his resignation. The letter stated:

“to fulfil your contractual obligations by your actions of not presenting to work in Dublin since 30th September. For absolute clarity, you do not meet the conditions of working abroad as per the Together Anywhere policy, therefore the firm has no other option but to accept that you have resigned from your employment in PwC Ireland”.

On 3 December 2024 the Complainant replied:

“It will be difficult for me to travel to Ireland for a meeting with an uncertain outcome. I fail to understand why the meeting cannot be conduct (sic) online. I had requested you back in July 2024 itself to change my Coach. If you would have changed it back, things would be different”.

Ms. O’Reilly had previously discussed the Complainant’s concerns regarding Mr. Crofton in June 2024 and understood those concerns to have been resolved. When allegations of inappropriate behaviour were subsequently raised, the Respondent again attempted to address them, including during the telephone conversation on 12 November 2024 when she informed the Complainant that his concerns could be investigated upon his return under the Respondent’s policies. She says this was repeated in the Respondent’s letter of 22 November 2024 and notes that the Complainant never raised a formal complaint against Mr. Crofton.

On 3 December 2024 she again wrote to the Complainant stating:

“The Investigation meeting is a formal meeting and needs to be conducted in person. As you are an employee in PwC Ireland, you are required to attend an in-person meeting in the Dublin office… Based on your response below, I accept that you will not be returning to work in Ireland and therefore I will process your termination effective today”.

The Respondent’s position is that the Complainant’s actions amounted to a fundamental breach of contract which effectively terminated the contract. Despite repeated requests, the Complainant has not returned his company-issued laptop and mobile phone, which she says are valued at approximately €1,900, despite the termination of employment having taken effect almost sixteen months previously.

The Complainant made an application at the completion of the hearing for the decision to be anonymised. The Complainant did not outline any special circumstances that could allow me to exercise by discretion to anonymise the decision. Post hearing a medical certificate was furnished to the WRC however I find that the content of the medical certificate and the certificate itself have no relevance to the matter that is before me. Therefore, I am refusing the Complainant’s application. 

Having carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence presented by both parties, I find that the central issue in this case is whether the termination of the Complainant's employment amounted to an unfair dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015.

The Complainant's contract of employment expressly provided that his normal place of work was the Respondent's premises in Dublin or client premises as directed by the Respondent. The contract further provided for hybrid working arrangements but expressly required employees to remain based in Ireland and attend the office in accordance with the Respondent's policies. These contractual obligations were reinforced by the Respondent's Empowered Working Day Policy and Together Anywhere Policy.

I accept the evidence of Ms. O'Reilly that the Complainant had previously availed of the Together Anywhere Policy and was therefore fully aware of the restrictions governing overseas working arrangements. The policy permitted a maximum of 30 working days abroad in any rolling twelve-month period and required prior approval. There is no evidence before me that the Complainant sought or obtained approval to relocate to India from September 2024 onwards.

I prefer the evidence of the Respondent that the Complainant worked from India from 30 September 2024 without authorisation and without informing the Respondent. I further accept the Respondent's evidence that when concerns arose regarding his attendance, the Complainant denied being in India and maintained that he was working from Dublin. The Respondent's evidence in this regard was supported by access card records and IP address data. The Complainant ultimately acknowledged during the investigation process that he was in India.

The Complainant maintained that Mr. Crofton had authorised him to work from India. However, no documentary evidence was produced to support this assertion, and it was denied by the Respondent. The Complainant accepted under cross-examination that no such permission was recorded in correspondence and that he never communicated any approval to HR even though he had the approval. I do not find this assertion credible in circumstances where the Complainant was familiar with the formal overseas working approval process.

The Respondent repeatedly requested that the Complainant return to Ireland to attend meetings and resume his duties. The evidence demonstrates that the Respondent sought to engage with the Complainant regarding both the concerns about his working location and his allegations regarding Mr. Crofton. The Complainant was offered opportunities to attend investigation meetings and was informed that any complaints he wished to raise would be addressed through the Respondent's procedures. Notwithstanding these efforts, the Complainant repeatedly stated that he would not return to Ireland.

The Complainant's refusal to return to Ireland was not temporary or contingent upon a specific event. Rather, the evidence establishes that he intended to remain in India indefinitely and wished to continue working remotely from there notwithstanding the clear contractual requirement that he be based in Ireland. In my view, this amounted to a fundamental repudiation of an essential term of the contract of employment.

The employment relationship depends upon mutual trust and confidence. The unauthorised relocation abroad, the failure to comply with contractual attendance requirements, the misrepresentation of the Complainant's location, and the subsequent refusal to return to Ireland when directed to do so constituted a serious breach of the employment contract. The Respondent was entitled to regard the Complainant's conduct as demonstrating that he no longer intended to be bound by the fundamental terms of his employment.

I am satisfied that the Respondent acted reasonably in seeking to have the Complainant return to Ireland and participate in an in-person investigation. The Respondent afforded him multiple opportunities to do so. The termination of the employment relationship arose directly from the Complainant's refusal to comply with his contractual obligations and his stated intention not to return to Ireland.

Having considered all of the evidence, I find that the Complainant was the author of his own predicament. The termination of the employment relationship resulted from his fundamental breach of contract and refusal to perform his duties from his contractual place of work in Ireland. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent has demonstrated substantial grounds justifying the termination of the employment relationship.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts is not well founded.

Complaint reference CA-00070749-001 was withdrawn.

 CA-00070745-001 is not well founded and accordingly fails.

CA-00070749-001 withdrawn

Breach of contract. Dismissal.