WRC throws out TikTok worker’s remote working complaint

A State workplace watchdog has thrown out a worker’s claim that the Irish arm of social media giant TikTok has not treated an employee’s request for remote working in a lawful manner.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudicator Michael McEntee has deemed the remote working complaint by TikTok operations specialist Zaurbek Musaev against TikTok Technology Ltd as “not properly founded” and must fail.

Mr Musaev commenced working at TikTok in Dublin in August 2021 and at date of hearing on January 7 continued to work for Tik Tok where he received a salary of €3,556 per month.

In essence Mr Musaev’s complaint was that his application for full time Remote Working on March 29. 2024 had not been treated lawfully or in any proper manner especially in view of his complicated situation.

The hearing heard that Mr Musaev’s application background was complex and heavily influenced by a very serious road traffic collision in late 2020 where he was extremely fortunate to have survived.

Mr Musaev resides in Co Monaghan and commutes to Dublin either by car or public transport.

Travelling is very stressful for Mr Musaev and triggers very traumatic recollections of the road traffic collision.

It was his belief that the quality of his daily work would not be impacted in any way by remote working and in fact it would improve and be more beneficial to Tik Tok Technology.

Extensive inter party correspondence including medical reports were presented in evidence to support Mr Musaev’s case.

In response, TikTok Technology Ltd, represented by A & L Goodbody LLP. pointed out that Mr Musaev’s place of work is the Dublin office of TikTok.

The legal firm pointed out that flexibility regarding remote working can be allowed but subject to the overall acceptance that the Dublin office is the place of work identified by the employment contract.

Adjudicator Mr McEntee stated that in essence TikTok’s case was that they had abided by the letter and spirit of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.

TikTok pointed out Mr Musaev’s case, which it was acknowledged was indeed complex, was fully examined in keeping with all, quite extensive, internal procedures.

TikTok cited Section 27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act where the statutory requirement precludes an Adjudication Officer from “assessing the merits of the decision or the refusal by an employer of an application”.

In conclusion TikTok contended that they had discharged all their legal obligations and there could now be no case to answer.

In his findings, Mr McEntee agreed with the TikTok position. He said that extensive case law was also demonstrative that once proper consideration is given to a request the statutory obligations of an employer are met.

He said that Section 27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act applies to preclude an Adjudication Officer assessing the merits or otherwise of an employer decision or refusal.

“Accordingly, this case must, under the strict legal terms of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 be deemed not properly founded. It must fail,” he said.

Mr McEntee stated that as an aside he noted favourably that considerable efforts are being made to resolve amicably many of the underlying complexities of the case.

Reporting by Gordon Deegan