{"id":577105,"date":"2026-07-09T15:52:12","date_gmt":"2026-07-09T15:52:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/577105\/"},"modified":"2026-07-09T15:52:12","modified_gmt":"2026-07-09T15:52:12","slug":"pwc-employee-was-working-remotely-in-india-when-he-should-have-been-in-dublin-the-irish-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/577105\/","title":{"rendered":"PwC employee was working remotely in India when he should have been in Dublin \u2013 The Irish Times"},"content":{"rendered":"

A PwC<\/a> employee discovered to have been working remotely <\/a>from India for weeks when he should have been based in his office in Dublin has lost a challenge to his dismissal.<\/p>\n

A Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator said senior associate, Jasch Asher was \u201cthe author of his own predicament\u201d after finding that he intended to remain in India and wished to continue working remotely from there, despite a \u201cclear contractual requirement\u201d that he be based in Ireland.<\/p>\n

Asher\u2019s level of attendance at PwC\u2019s offices on North Wall Quay, Dublin 1 came under scrutiny in November 2024 after he told his supervisor he couldn\u2019t meet him in person to discuss the outcome of his performance improvement plan, the company told the tribunal. <\/p>\n

Melanie Crowley of Mason, Hayes & Curran, for PwC, submitted that Asher had two days\u2019 notice of the meeting scheduled for November 2024, but turned it down with 10 minutes\u2019 notice, telling his supervisor, he was \u201cnot in the office\u201d. <\/p>\n

The correspondence indicated the supervisor was under the impression Asher lived five or 10 minutes\u2019 walk from the office, and rescheduled the meeting for later in the day, it was submitted. <\/p>\n

Asher said he \u201chad a cold and could not come into the office\u201d when the supervisor reached him by phone, it was further submitted. <\/p>\n

When the supervisor asked if he had been in earlier in the week, Asher said he had, the tribunal was told. <\/p>\n

Asher then proceeded to make \u201cserious allegations against the supervisor and accused him of bullying him\u201d, Crowley submitted. The supervisor denied these allegations and was never subject to a formal complaint by r Asher, the WRC heard. <\/p>\n

The supervisor went to HR for advice and \u201cmentioned that he had not actually seen the complainant in the office for some time\u201d, she added. <\/p>\n

Crowley submitted that PwC then started looking into Asher\u2019s office attendance by examining access card data and his internet traffic. <\/p>\n

They discovered he had been \u201cworking from India since September 30th, 2024\u201d \u2013 the previous five working weeks \u2013 \u201cwithout the respondent\u2019s knowledge and contrary to his contract\u201d, Crowley submitted. <\/p>\n

PwC\u2019s remote work policy allowed for a maximum period of 30 days working from overseas \u2013 an allotment Asher had already used up, the tribunal was told. <\/p>\n

The following week, PwC human resources officer Ciara O\u2019Reilly had a conference call with Asher and the supervisor and told the complainant he was being suspended for a disciplinary investigation, O\u2019Reilly said in evidence. <\/p>\n

O\u2019Reilly said that, on the call, Asher \u201cdenied being in India and insisted he was working from his home in Dublin\u201d. <\/p>\n

The supervisor then asked him to come to the office the next day, but Asher said he couldn\u2019t, O\u2019Reilly said. <\/p>\n

Later that month, O\u2019Reilly said, Asher admitted to her that he had been \u201cworking from India for some time\u201d. He said he couldn\u2019t come back to Dublin \u201cbecause his landlord had sold or was in the process of selling his accommodation\u201d and he didn\u2019t want to work with the supervisor, the witness said. <\/p>\n

Asher \u201cwished to continue working remotely from India\u201d and \u201cmade it clear he had no intention of returning to work in Ireland\u201d, the witness said. <\/p>\n

There had already been two attempts to convene an in-person disciplinary investigation meeting with Asher in November the tribunal heard. <\/p>\n

\u201cIt 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[ed] online,\u201d Asher wrote in one email in early December 2024. <\/p>\n

In reply, O\u2019Reilly wrote: \u201cI accept you will not be returning to work in Ireland and therefore I will process your termination, effective today,\u201d the tribunal was told. <\/p>\n

Asher, who represented himself at a hearing in April this year, told the WRC the supervisor gave him permission to work from India, though he accepted under cross-examination that he had not mentioned this in any correspondence with his employer.<\/p>\n

He denied telling O\u2019Reilly he had to move back to India because his landlord was selling up. He said he had gone back for \u201cfamily reasons\u201d. <\/p>\n

Asher said he remained out of work at the time of the hearing and was living off his savings. <\/p>\n

Adjudication officer Niamh O\u2019Carroll dismissed Asher\u2019s complaint against PwC under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 in a decision published on Thursday. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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,\u201d she wrote. <\/p>\n

PwC had \u201csubstantial grounds justifying the termination of the employment relationship\u201d, O\u2019Carroll wrote. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe termination of the employment relationship arose directly from the complainant\u2019s refusal to comply with his contractual obligations and his stated intention not to return to Ireland,\u201d she wrote. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe complainant was the author of his own predicament,\u201d she added. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A PwC employee discovered to have been working remotely from India for weeks when he should have been…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":577106,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[73],"tags":[79,18,19,17,2356,25243],"class_list":["post-577105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-business","tag-business","tag-eire","tag-ie","tag-ireland","tag-pwc","tag-remote-working"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ie\/116890825304749105","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/577105","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=577105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/577105\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/577106"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=577105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=577105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=577105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}