Employment tribunal digest: Q3 2026
Five employment disputes from the UK, Ireland and Germany – and what international employers can learn from them.
Two employees moved abroad and continued working without their employers’ approval. A senior Goldman Sachs executive received approximately £1.45 million after discrimination linked to parental leave. In Germany, the Federal Labour Court ruled against excluding minimum-wage workers from a voluntary bonus and clarified how employers can challenge back-pay claims following invalid dismissals.
These five cases, decided or attracting significant attention between July and September 2026, concern different aspects of employment law. What connects them is the importance of employment contracts, workplace policies, consistent management decisions and evidence.
For employers managing international workforces, they offer practical lessons on cross-border employment, dismissal procedures, employee benefits and financial liability.
1. Remote working from home does not mean working from any country
Malyk v Teleperformance Contact Ltd · UK Employment Tribunal · 2 July 2026
Iryna Malyk joined Teleperformance in May 2022 as a regional finance business partner covering Europe. Her employment contract identified her home in Bristol as her principal workplace. When the company’s Bristol office closed in September 2022, she began working entirely from home.
In June 2024, after her husband secured employment in France, Malyk asked whether she could relocate and continue performing her duties remotely. She also explored the possibility of transferring to a French employment contract.
Teleperformance refused both options. The company maintained that permanent work from France under a UK employment contract raised legal and tax compliance concerns. A French employment arrangement was considered commercially unviable.
Malyk relocated in July despite the refusal. After she continued working from France and declined to return to the UK, the employer initiated disciplinary proceedings and dismissed her in August 2024.
What the tribunal decided
Employment Judge Hazel Oliver dismissed her unfair dismissal claim.
Although the contract did not expressly prohibit overseas remote working, it identified her Bristol home as her workplace and contained provisions referring to UK employment law and eligibility to work in the UK.
The tribunal accepted that the employer had a substantial reason for requiring her to work from the UK, particularly its genuine concerns about complying with French legal requirements. It found that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses after Malyk repeatedly declined to comply with that instruction.
Importantly, the tribunal did not determine precisely which French tax or social security obligations would have arisen. Its decision concerned the fairness of the dismissal, not the substantive application of French employment or tax law.
What employers should learn
An employee’s ability to perform a role remotely does not automatically establish a contractual right to work from another country.
International relocation requests should be assessed against the employment contract, applicable workplace policies and potential obligations in the destination country. Those obligations may concern local employment protections, payroll, social security, immigration and corporate taxation.
Employers should also communicate decisions clearly and document the reasons for approval or refusal.
Read the UK Employment Tribunal judgment
2. PwC employee’s undisclosed move to India ends in an unsuccessful dismissal claim
Jasch Asher v Price Waterhouse Coopers (ADJ-00058231) · Ireland, Workplace Relations Commission · 25 June 2026; reported in July
Jasch Asher joined PwC’s Dublin assurance practice in February 2022 as a senior associate. His contract established Dublin as his normal place of work, subject to the company’s hybrid-working arrangements.
PwC also operated an international remote-working policy permitting eligible employees to work abroad for up to 30 working days per country within a rolling 12-month period, subject to prior approval.
Asher was familiar with the procedure, having previously obtained approval to work overseas in January 2024.
However, from 30 September 2024, he worked from India without obtaining fresh authorisation.
The arrangement came to light when concerns about his office attendance prompted an internal investigation. Building access records and IP address data indicated that he had been working from India for several weeks.
According to evidence presented at the hearing, Asher initially denied being in India. He subsequently acknowledged his location but maintained that he had permission to work remotely. He was unable to produce documentary evidence of that approval.
He also declined to return to Ireland or attend an in-person investigation meeting. PwC ultimately treated his refusal to return to his contractual workplace as a resignation and ended his employment in December 2024.
What the WRC decided
Adjudication Officer Niamh O’Carroll rejected Asher’s unfair dismissal claim.
The adjudicator placed particular weight on the clear contractual requirement to work from Ireland, the company’s established overseas-working policy and Asher’s previous use of its approval procedure.
His intention to remain in India, despite the contractual requirement to work in Ireland, was treated as a fundamental breach of the employment agreement.
The adjudicator described Asher as “the author of his own predicament”.
What employers should learn
The case demonstrates the value of having a documented policy that distinguishes domestic hybrid working from international remote working.
PwC could establish both the existence of its overseas-working restrictions and the employee’s awareness of them.
It also illustrates the importance of reliable evidence when investigating unauthorised changes in working location. Any use of access logs, IP addresses or similar monitoring information must itself comply with applicable data protection and employee privacy requirements.
Read the DLA Piper case analysis
3. Goldman Sachs ordered to pay £1.45 million after discrimination linked to parental leave
Reeves v Goldman Sachs International (2209024/2022) · UK Employment Tribunal · remedy judgment 29 July 2026
Jonathan Reeves had worked for Goldman Sachs since 2007, progressing to Senior Vice President and Deputy Global Head of the Control Room.
He had a record of strong performance assessments. However, his employment relationship deteriorated around the time he took six months of shared parental leave following the birth of his second child.
The tribunal examined evidence that managers had discussed replacing him, excluded him from aspects of management activity and subsequently characterised his performance negatively.
His remuneration was reduced, and in 2022 he was selected for redundancy.
Reeves brought claims for unfair dismissal and direct sex discrimination, arguing that his treatment was connected to his decision to take an extended period of parental leave.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that Goldman Sachs had unfairly dismissed Reeves and subjected him to direct sex discrimination through allegations of underperformance, reduced remuneration and dismissal.
It also concluded that the redundancy process was unfair.
However, the tribunal recognised a 50% probability that Reeves would have been dismissed fairly for genuine redundancy reasons following an appropriate process. This affected the assessment of compensation for losses attributable to the dismissal.
In its remedy judgment issued in July 2026, the tribunal awarded approximately £1.45 million.
The award included past and future financial losses, injury to feelings and other consequential losses. The substantial future-loss component reflected the tribunal’s findings about the damage to Reeves’s career prospects in financial services.
Goldman Sachs maintained that it disagreed with the ruling and highlighted its policy offering up to 26 weeks of paid parental leave to eligible employees.
What employers should learn
A generous parental leave policy offers little protection against discrimination claims if actual management decisions contradict the policy’s principles.
Performance assessments, remuneration decisions, organisational changes and redundancy selection must be supported by consistent, objective evidence.
The case also demonstrates why future earnings losses can make discrimination awards exceptionally expensive, particularly for senior employees.
There is an additional regulatory consideration for UK employers. From 1 January 2027, the existing statutory cap on compensatory awards for ordinary unfair dismissal is scheduled to be removed under the Employment Rights Act 2025. This is separate from discrimination compensation, which is already uncapped.
Read the remedy judgment commentary from Cloisters
4. German employer cannot use a minimum wage increase to justify withholding an inflation bonus
Federal Labour Court, 10 AZR 62/26 · Germany · 30 September 2026
A German employer introduced a voluntary inflation compensation payment for employees following the sharp increase in living costs.
Under the arrangement, eligible full-time employees received €115.38 per month over 26 months, while part-time employees received proportionate amounts.
However, the employer excluded certain employees whose hourly pay had increased because of the statutory minimum wage rise in October 2022. Employees below a specified previous hourly pay threshold, together with certain higher earners, received a single €250 payment instead.
One affected employee, whose hourly wage had increased from €10.56 to €12 under the new minimum wage, challenged the arrangement.
The employer argued that workers who had already benefited from the statutory wage increase had less need for additional inflation compensation.
The employee lost before both the labour court and the regional labour court.
What the Federal Labour Court decided
Germany’s Federal Labour Court overturned the earlier decisions.
It held that excluding employees from a voluntary additional payment because their wages had risen to meet the statutory minimum violated the employment-law principle of equal treatment.
The court explained that the statutory minimum wage represents remuneration the employer is already obliged to provide. It cannot, in these circumstances, be treated as a substitute for an additional voluntary inflation compensation payment.
When employers establish different groups of employees for discretionary payments, the distinctions must be objectively justified by the purpose of those payments.
What employers should learn
A bonus described as voluntary is not necessarily exempt from employment-law scrutiny.
Employers introducing discretionary bonuses, allowances or special payments in Germany need to establish defensible eligibility criteria.
This is particularly important when designing payments for different salary bands or employee categories. A distinction that appears financially reasonable may still breach employment equality principles.
The original German inflation compensation tax exemption expired at the end of 2024, but the judgment’s reasoning about voluntary payments and equal treatment remains relevant.
Read the Federal Labour Court’s official statement
5. German court limits what employers can demand from dismissed employees claiming back pay
Federal Labour Court, 5 AZR 37/25 · Germany · 26 August 2026
A warehouse supervisor challenged the termination of his employment and subsequently sought remuneration for the period during which the employer had not provided him with work.
Under German employment law, when a dismissal is invalid, an employer may remain liable to pay wages for the intervening period.
However, the amount may be reduced by earnings the employee obtained elsewhere or could have earned through suitable employment that they deliberately failed to accept.
The employer argued that the employee had failed to make sufficient efforts to obtain alternative work.
It sought extensive information about his job search, including vacancies referred by the public employment service, applications submitted and their outcomes, as well as his independent job applications.
What the Federal Labour Court decided
The Federal Labour Court clarified the limits of an employer’s entitlement to information.
An employer may require disclosure of suitable job opportunities communicated to the employee by Germany’s employment agency or jobcentre, including details such as duties, working hours, location and remuneration.
However, it does not have a separate, independently enforceable right to demand comprehensive information about whether and how the employee applied for those opportunities or about the employee’s own independent job search.
The employer remains responsible for substantiating its argument that the employee deliberately failed to pursue suitable alternative employment.
The Federal Labour Court overturned the lower court’s decision on procedural grounds and returned the case for further consideration. It did not finally determine the underlying back-pay claim.
What employers should learn
The potential financial consequences of an invalid dismissal extend beyond the date employment is terminated.
Employers may face liability for substantial periods of unpaid remuneration while legal proceedings continue.
Although alternative earnings can reduce that liability, employers cannot assume that employees must disclose their entire job-search history on demand.
Before terminating employment in Germany, employers should assess not only the grounds and procedure for dismissal but also potential back-pay exposure and the evidence required to challenge it.
Read the Federal Labour Court’s official statement
What these cases mean for international employers
The five disputes illustrate different ways employment liabilities can emerge from decisions made well before legal proceedings begin.
In the UK and Irish remote-working cases, employers successfully relied on contractual workplace requirements and the circumstances surrounding employees’ unauthorised international moves.
The Goldman Sachs case illustrates the opposite problem: internal management decisions and records did not support the employer’s position, contributing to a substantial discrimination award.
The German decisions show that employment-law exposure can also arise from the design of payroll benefits and the financial consequences of invalid dismissals.
Across these cases, several considerations stand out:
- Establish the correct employment jurisdiction. An agreed remote-working arrangement should not be assumed to authorise working internationally. Changes in working location require an assessment of local legal and administrative obligations.
- Make policies operational. Contractual provisions and HR policies should be sufficiently clear for employees and managers to understand what is permitted, what requires approval and how decisions will be documented.
- Apply consistent decision-making standards. Performance management, leave, redundancy selection and employee benefits require objective, legally defensible criteria.
- Consider financial exposure before termination. The cost of a disputed dismissal may extend beyond statutory severance to back pay, discrimination compensation and future earnings losses.
For multinational businesses, these considerations become more demanding when employees work under different national employment laws.
Managing cross-border employment requirements with Acumen International
The Teleperformance and PwC cases demonstrate that businesses may have legitimate reasons to refuse an employee’s overseas relocation. But where retaining an employee in a new country makes commercial sense, the employment arrangements need to be assessed and established before the move.
Acumen International provides Global Employer of Record services across 190+ countries, enabling companies to employ staff through a local legal employer without establishing their own entity. Services cover locally compliant employment contracts, payroll, statutory contributions and ongoing employment administration.
Where a relocation also requires immigration authorisation, Acumen’s Global Mobility services address work permits, visa sponsorship and associated requirements.
For businesses reviewing international employment arrangements, dismissal risks, compensation arrangements or local employment obligations, Global Workforce Advisory provides country-specific guidance to support informed decisions before problems arise.
Employ talent across borders with Acumen International
When an employee needs to work from another country, Acumen International can help you understand the local employment requirements, costs and any work permit or visa obligations.
Through our Global Employer of Record solutions, you can legally employ and retain talent in 190+ countries without establishing a local entity.
Sources and case references
- Malyk v Teleperformance Contact Ltd, Case 6018900/2024 — UK Employment Tribunal, 2 July 2026.
- Asher v Price Waterhouse Coopers, ADJ-00058231 — Irish Workplace Relations Commission, 25 June 2026; coverage published 9 July 2026.
- Reeves v Goldman Sachs International, Case 2209024/2022 — UK Employment Tribunal, remedy judgment, 29 July 2026.
- Federal Labour Court, 10 AZR 62/26 — Germany, 30 September 2026.
- Federal Labour Court, 5 AZR 37/25 — Germany, 26 August 2026.
- UK Government: Changes to unfair dismissal rights — Employment Rights Act 2025 implementation guidance.
T
