A man fired from PwC Ireland for working in India when he was supposed to be in Dublin has lost his unfair dismissal case before the Workplace Relations Commission, a sort of government labor board that hears employment cases and resolves disputes.
Irish Times got the scoop first:
A Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator said senior associate, Jasch Asher was “the author of his own predicament” after finding that he intended to remain in India and wished to continue working remotely from there, despite a “clear contractual requirement” that he be based in Ireland.
Workplace Relations Commission cases are publicly available, we can find Jasch Asher’s case against PwC here (note: he originally asked to be anonymous, the WRC rejected the request as they didn’t see a reason why he needed to be). From that, we see that Asher was fired from PwC in December of 2024. His side of the story says he left Ireland for India on September 30, 2024 and continued to work as normal, with permission from his coach Mr. Des Crofton (according to LinkedIn, Crofton was a director in FS Risk and Regulatory at PwC Ireland during this period). The firm’s side of the story is that he dodged them for weeks and was eventually caught working from India without permission by his own IP address.
The case respondent, Ciara O’ Reilly in HR, outlined the firm’s “Together Anywhere” policy, which allows people to work out-of-country for up to 30 days a year with approval. Asher took one such trip in January of 2024.
On March 6 of that year, Asher’s team leader reached out to 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.”
On June 12, Asher asked for some time off to travel to India for medical appointments. Six days later, he was informed he would be put on a PIP “due to concerns regarding his performance.” According to HR, he objected to the PIP (who doesn’t) and asked to be assigned a new coach. From there the wheels start falling off:
Ms. O’Reilly [HR] states that she contacted the Complainant [Asher] 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.”
His coach tried to meet with him in person in November, unbeknownst to him at the time Asher had been in India since the end of September hence why Asher kept coming up with excuses why he couldn’t come into the office:
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.
So his IP address told on him. This was one of Asher’s beefs before the WRC, that he was not informed his IP address data “would be used against him.” Come on, my guy.
The WRC found there was no unfair dismissal, that Asher didn’t have permission to work from India and that the firm tried to resolve this using proper internal procedures. Additionally the adjudication officer wrote:
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.
The best line from the decision is this:
Having considered all of the evidence, I find that the Complainant was the author of his own predicament.
