WRC rules TikTok not unlawful in refusing remote work for employee injured in car crash

The Journal

22-04-2025

TIKTOK'S REFUSAL TO allow an employee seriously injured in a car crash to work full time from home did not breach employment legislation, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ruled.
WRC adjudicator Michael McEntee deemed the remote working complaint by TikTok operations specialist Zaurbek Musaev against the social media giant as 'not properly founded'.
Musaev began working at TikTok in Dublin in August 2021 and (as of the date of hearing on 7 January) continued to work for TikTok, where he received a salary of €3,556 per month.
In essence, Musaev's complaint was that his application for full time remote working last year had not been treated lawfully or in any proper manner, especially in view of his complicated situation.
Musaev made the application for remote work on on 29 March 2024.
He informed the WRC that his application for full-time remote work was primarily due to a serious road traffic accident in late 2020, which he was extremely lucky to survive.
Musaev, who lives in Co Monaghan, commutes to Dublin by either car or public transport.
He testified that travelling causes him significant stress and brings back traumatic memories of the crash.
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 Musaev's case.
In response, TikTok Technology Ltd, represented by A & L Goodbody LLP, pointed out that 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.
Advertisement
Adjudicator 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 Musaev's case, which it 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, 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,' McEntee said. 'It must fail.'
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.
A number of cases relating to remote working applications have been rejected by the WRC in recent months, highlighting the limitations of Ireland's remote working legislation.
In March 2024, the WRC published its code of practice outlining the procedures employers must follow when considering requests under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (which grants employees the right to request remote or flexible working, but does not guarantee approval).
The WRC code marked the final piece in the legislative framework intended to deliver on the promise to enshrine the right to remote and hybrid working in law.
However, recent WRC decisions – including this one – suggest that while employees may now formally request remote work, employers retain broad discretion to refuse, provided they follow the correct process.
Additional reporting by Andrew Walsh