Remote work dismissals: Did these workers take WFH privileges too far?
Ever since working from home became widespread during the pandemic, there have been no shortage of news stories about workers dismissed for abusing the privilege. As many employers look to wind back WFH privileges, these stories seem to justify their position to invoke remote work dismissals.
However, we must remember that employees who abuse remote working are in the small minority. The media often sensationalises these negative stories. While ignoring the vast majority of workers who abide by, and are more productive, while working remotely.
These workers, and many others, now see working from home not as a privilege, but a right that they will fight for. And we have already seen inroads towards making remote working a right. In 2023, the government passed laws that give workers the right to request a flexible working arrangement, which can include working from home.
Some workers, however, may be undoing this progress. In this article, we look at a few recent news stories of workers who may have abused their work from home privileges by, for example, secretly working from Bali or the beach. Did these workers take their privileges too far?
Work from home employee who did ‘no tasks’ wins unfair dismissal
This story from the UK made news headlines in March 2025. It involved Nicholas Kitaruth, who worked as a deputy security manager for OCS Security. He was dismissed by the company in September 2023 for allegedly abusing his WFH privileges. Mr Kitaruth challenged his sacking via a UK employment tribunal.
Mr Kitaruth provided security for a client; the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London. His usual place of work was at the Centre, but his manager permitted him to work from home on occasion, per an informal agreement. Mr Kitaruth usually worked from home two days per week.
In August 2023, Mr Kitaruth asked his manager if he could work from home remotely from Cornwall – some 400 kilometres away from the Centre – between the 14th and 17th of that month. This was during a quieter period for the Centre. Whether his manager actually approved this request would later be considered by a UK employment tribunal, whose verdict we detail later in this article.
Mr Kitaruth went ahead and travelled to Cornwall, signing in to work remotely on 14 August. In the afternoon of the 14th, however, his manager sent him a text message asking we he was. The manager said that they had a meeting coming up at the Centre office in two days’ time.
Mr Kitaruth told his manager that he was working from home in Cornwall. His manager replied saying that he had never confirmed Mr Kitaruth could work from Cornwall. He said that working from home “means working from home” and that Mr Kitaruth had too many tasks to work so remotely.
Worker dismissed for abusing work from home privileges
However, after receiving these texts, Mr Kitaruth sent his manager a voicemail saying that “we spoke about this and you said it would be fine.” He then wrote up a list of the tasks that he would do while in Cornwall. But later that month, OCS Security investigated Mr Kitaruth’s work habits while in Cornwall.
It concluded that he failed to fulfil his work duties, which included missing meetings, failing to respond to certain emails and not answering phone calls. Mr Kitaruth was dismissed by the company for gross misconduct in September 2023. He subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with a UK employment tribunal.
Tribunal ‘doubted’ employee did any work
OSS Security argued to the tribunal that Mr Kitaruth had not obtained permission to work from Cornwall. However, Mr Kitaruth maintained that he had verbally agreed on this arrangement with his manager.
During the tribunal, the manager stated that staff were not necessarily required to work from their registered home address. However, he said they needed to remain contactable and available for site visits if required. The manager asserted that he would not have approved a four-day remote working arrangement, particularly from a location so far from the office.
The tribunal determined that Mr Kitaruth genuinely believed he had obtained permission to work from Cornwall during the specified period. However, it had “doubts” about whether Mr Kitaruth “did any work” while he was working from home in Cornwall.
Work from home permission was ‘ambiguous’
The tribunal noted that Mr Kitaruth and his manager had had several discussion about his working from Cornwall. It said that there was “ambiguity” in these discussions. The tribunal observed that Mr Kitaruth’s manager typically permitted work from home arrangements on an “informal” verbal basis.
It did not agree that the manager would have never agreed to Mr Kitaruth working from home in Cornwall. It found it “not implausible” that he would have agreed to the arrangement given August was a quiet time at the Centre.
Dismissal was unfair due to procedural deficiencies
The tribunal acknowledged that Mr Kitaruth had misled his managers regarding his work arrangements. OCS Security provided evidence that “numerous tasks” were left uncompleted during his time working in Cornwall. The tribunal acknowledged Mr Kitaruth’s “apparent failure to do any work” during the four days nor respond to his manager’s queries.
However, the tribunal found that OCS Security had not followed a fair investigation process prior to sacking Mr Kitaruth. It said it was “extremely poor practice” for the company to have delayed the appeal process for several months.
It was also said that no reasonable employer would have made a decision to dismiss an employee without formally interviewing the line manager responsible for overseeing their work. The tribunal ruled that the lack of a comprehensive investigation rendered the dismissal unfair.
The tribunal said it would convene again to work out how to compensate Mr Kitaruth. However, due to the finding that he did no work while in Cornwall, his compensation would be reduced by 50 per cent.
Workers caught ‘working from home’ in Bali
In November 2024, a TikTok went viral showing how some workers are using their work from home privileges to holiday in Bali. The worker in this case was not dismissed, but perhaps would have been had their employer knew the truth.
The video created by Australian influencer montana.on.tour has amassed almost 70,000 likes and shows her friend giving a virtual presentation to her work colleagues in London. Montana said in the clip that her friend had been “prepping for weeks” for the presentation, which she planned to deliver from her Bali hotel room. Her bosses had no idea she was not located in London.
Her lie almost came out just as she starting presenting to the “big execs” 12,000 kilometres away. Montana said that they both heard a “crazy loud sound” coming from outside the room. This was a “Balinese dance performance.” Montana said it was “soooo loud and soo obvious” that her friend was not working remotely in London.
Execs didn’t notice anything strange
However, her friend kept her composure and continued delivering her important presentation. This was even while people were “wooing and clapping” just next door to their hotel room. Montana said her friend was “a gun” who still ended up delivering “the best” presentation.
She that she believed the execs in the meeting could not actually hear the Balinese performance in the background, and that is why they did not say anything. Once the presentation was done, Montana said that she and her friend both “just cracked up.”
The video quickly gained traction, with many viewers relating to the experience of working in unconventional locations. Some shared their own experiences of attempting to maintain professionalism while working remotely in unexpected environments. One commenter described doing “exactly the same thing” by delivering a presentation with construction noise in the background.
Another person mentioned that they once took a work call “inside the Colosseum in Rome.” They said they took the call as they “didn’t want to cancel the day trip” to the tourist hotspot.
Others highlighted instances where their employers were unaware of their exact location. One user recalled nearly facing disciplinary action after attending a meeting from a beach club bar in Malaga, Spain.
Workers caught WFH at Sydney beach
In another similar news story that made the rounds in October 2024, an Aussie TikToker shared how she apparently caught two women working from home while sunbathing at the beach. The duo were spotted on Sydney’s Balmoral Beach on a Friday afternoon. The footage attracted a large amount of comments, many of them critical of the pair for seemingly abusing their remote working privileges.
One commenter said that if she were an employer, she would be “tracking your every movement and location if I was to even consider letting people WFH.” Another admitted that “I WFH and definitely would get in trouble.”
However, some came to the defence of the women, saying that it was not known if they were actually at work. They said that they simply could have been doing a university assignment or even working for themselves.
Worker who insisted on working remotely from Pakistan wins unfair dismissal
This story, which made the media rounds in January 2025, shows how an employee may take their WFH privileges too far. But in this case, the way the employer delt with the employee’s behaviour was in fact illegal.
The story involved software developer Tehmina Akhtar, who launched an unfair dismissal and discrimination claim against her employer, Calrom Limited. She began working for the company in 2017 at its office in Cheshire, UK.
During the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, Ms Akhtar was placed on furlough along with several colleagues. Later that year, she requested and was granted an unpaid career break due to her “weak health.” Ms Akhtar had previously had a panic attack at work and suffered from anxiety.
Ms Akhtar was originally expected to return in January 2021, but she requested an extension to complete an online language course. She said that this course was “beneficial to my wellbeing.” This extension was approved, but she later sought a further extension until January 2022, citing her poor health.
Proposal to work from home in Pakistan
In December 2021, a month before her scheduled return, Ms Akhtar travelled to Pakistan to be with her family. The next month, she told Calrom that she was unable to return to the UK due to health concerns. She proposed working remotely from a rural area near the Pakistani city of Lahore until her health improved.
Calrom rejected this request, stating that her role required her to be in the UK for re-training following her extended absence. The company said that working from Pakistan was not an option due to the infrastructure limitations Ms Akhtar had herself highlighted. She had previously told Calrom about the internet connection and power supply issues in the region.
Despite the rejection, the company permitted a further career break extension until August 2022.
Dismissed for failing to return to UK
As the new return date approached, Ms Akhtar told Calrom that she was unable to travel back to the UK without her parents. Calrom then drafted an email stating that if she did not return to the UK by 1 September 2022, she would be dismissed. However, the company did not send this message until it was already clear that she would be unable to return by the deadline.
On 31 August 2022, the company formally notified Ms Akhtar that her failure to return to work was being treated as a resignation. She subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal and discrimination claim.
Tribunal highlighted procedural deficiencies
The tribunal found that Calrom had not discriminated against Ms Akhtar based on her anxiety. It also concluded that it had valid reasons for rejecting her request to work remotely from Pakistan. They accepted that her absence from the office for over two years made re-training necessary. It also acknowledged that connectivity issues posed a genuine challenge to her ability to fulfil her role remotely.
However, the tribunal determined that the company had not given Ms Akhtar sufficient warning that failure to return would lead to dismissal. It said that a “reasonable employer” would have explained its concerns to her and allowed her to explain her circumstances.
The tribunal also found that Calrom had not adequately considered alternatives to dismissal. As a result, it ruled that Ms Akhtar had been unfairly dismissed and was entitled to compensation. The tribunal said it would determine Ms Akhtar’s compensation at a further hearing.
Have you been unfairly dismissed?
Our team at A Whole New Approach can help you take action through the Fair Work Commission. If you have been unfairly dismissed or faced discrimination, we can step you through the process of taking action. We are not lawyers, we are the nation’s leading commentators, advisors and influencers.
But be quick, as you only have 21 days from the date of your dismissal to make a claim. Call us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and private conversation.
See simialr articles to: ‘Remote work dismissals’
Careful when working from home, there are tax risks
Can you be bullied when working from home?
How much is my unfair dismissal claim worth.
