Recent global disruption has brought into sharp focus a scenario many employers rarely plan for until it happens. Flights grounded without warning. Airspace restrictions introduced at short notice. Regional instability unfolding faster than return travel can be arranged. Events in parts of the Middle East, including recent disruption affecting travel through Dubai, have illustrated just how quickly employees can find themselves unable to return to the UK.
For employers, the question is no longer hypothetical. What happens when an employee is suddenly stranded abroad?
For the individual, the experience is often stressful, uncertain and entirely outside their control. For the employer, however, the situation quickly moves beyond sympathy into something more operational. Work still needs to be delivered. Clients still need to be serviced. Teams still need structure. The difficulty lies in responding in a way that protects the business without treating the employee unfairly.
What the employee can actually do?
The most useful starting point is not legal categorisation, but capability.
Before considering absence, pay, or policy, employers should establish whether the employee can continue working in any meaningful sense. In many cases, particularly for office-based roles, some degree of remote working will be possible. Where that is the case, the immediate priority should be to facilitate it.
That may require a degree of flexibility. Working hours may need to shift to accommodate time differences. Outputs may need to be prioritised differently. In some roles, full productivity may not be realistic, but partial contribution is often preferable to complete disengagement.
Taking this approach achieves two things. It maintains business continuity where possible, and it avoids prematurely placing the employee into a category of absence which may not accurately reflect the situation.
Where work genuinely cannot continue, for example in site-based roles, regulated positions, or where infrastructure simply does not allow it, the position becomes more difficult. At that point, employers need to move from facilitation to management of the absence.
Decide early how the time will be treated and communicate it clearly
One of the most common sources of dispute in these situations is not the disruption itself, but the lack of clarity around pay and status.
Employers should make a conscious decision, at an early stage, about how the period abroad will be treated. Leaving this undefined creates uncertainty for the employee and risk for the business.
If the employee is working, even in a limited capacity, normal pay will generally continue. The more difficult question arises where they are not working. In those cases, employers should resist the temptation to default to unpaid leave without considering the contractual position.
Unless there is a clear contractual right to withhold pay, doing so unilaterally can expose the employer to claims. A more defensible approach is to reach an agreed position with the employee. This may involve a temporary period of paid leave, a transition to unpaid leave if the situation becomes prolonged, or the use of annual leave by agreement.
What matters is that the approach is reasoned, consistent, and clearly communicated. An employee who understands where they stand, even if the outcome is not ideal, is far less likely to challenge it later.
Avoid escalation unless the facts justify it
In the vast majority of cases, a stranded employee has done nothing wrong. Introducing concepts such as misconduct or disciplinary action too early risks both legal exposure and reputational harm.
However, there may come a point where the surrounding circumstances require closer scrutiny. If an employee ignores clear travel guidance, fails to make reasonable efforts to return, or disengages entirely from communication, the situation can shift from one of misfortune to one of accountability.
The key is timing and evidence. Employers should only move into a conduct-based analysis once they have a clear understanding of what the employee knew, what options were realistically available to them, and how they responded.
Handled correctly, this allows employers to retain control of the situation without appearing heavy-handed. Handled poorly, it can turn an already difficult scenario into a formal dispute.
Keep one eye on the wider legal risks
If the situation resolves quickly, many of the more technical legal issues will never materialise. But where an employee remains abroad for longer than expected, employers should begin to look beyond the immediate problem.
Allowing an employee to work remotely from another jurisdiction, even on a temporary basis, can carry immigration and regulatory implications. In some countries, working without the appropriate permission, even remotely for a UK employer, can breach local law.
There is also a point at which tax considerations may arise. While a short, unplanned stay is unlikely to trigger issues, a prolonged period abroad can raise questions about tax residency and, in some cases, whether the employer has created a taxable presence in that jurisdiction.
The practical takeaway is not that employers need to act immediately, but that they should recognise when a short-term disruption is becoming something more sustained, and take advice at that stage.
Support is not just a legal issue, it is a strategic one
Alongside the legal framework sits a broader, and often overlooked, consideration. How the organisation chooses to respond will be noticed.
Employees will draw conclusions from how situations like this are handled. A rigid or purely cost-driven response may solve an immediate problem but create longer-term issues around trust and retention. Conversely, a measured and supportive approach can strengthen engagement, even in difficult circumstances.
This does not mean that employers are expected to absorb all risk or cost. It means that decisions should be made consciously, with an understanding of both their legal and cultural impact.
A structured, defensible approach
Ultimately, situations where an employee is stranded abroad require employers to move quickly, but not reactively.
The most effective responses tend to follow a clear internal logic. Establish what the employee can do. Decide how the situation will be treated. Communicate that decision. Keep it under review as circumstances evolve.
By taking that approach, employers place themselves in a far stronger position. They reduce the risk of inconsistency, avoid unnecessary escalation, and ensure that, if decisions are later scrutinised, they can be explained and justified.
In a scenario defined by uncertainty, that clarity is often the most valuable outcome. Taking early advice in complex or prolonged situations can help employers navigate these issues with greater confidence.
