Latest news with #Musaev
The Journal
22-04-2025
- Business
- The Journal
WRC rules TikTok not unlawful in refusing remote work for employee injured in car crash
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
RTÉ News
22-04-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
WRC throws out worker's remote working complaint against Irish arm of TikTok
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.
BreakingNews.ie
22-04-2025
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Refusal of TikTok to allow employee with serious injuries to work from home not unlawful, WRC rules
The refusal of TikTok to allow an employee who had suffered serious injuries in a car crash to work full time from home was not in breach of employment legislation, the Workplace Relations Commission has ruled. The WRC found that TikTok Technology had not breached the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 in its decision not to allow Zaurbek Musaev to work from home. Advertisement Mr Musaev, an operations specialist with Tik Tok on a monthly salary of €3,556, claimed the IT company had not treated his request for remote working made in March 2024 in a lawful manner. He told the WRC that he had applied for full-time remote working largely due to a very serious road traffic collision in late 2020, which he had been extremely fortunate to survive. Mr Musaev lives in Co Monaghan and commutes to Dublin either by car or public transport. He gave evidence that he found travelling very stressful, and it triggers very traumatic recollections of the crash in which he was involved. Advertisement Mr Musaev claimed the quality of his work would not be impacted by remote working and would in fact improve and be more beneficial to Tik Tok. A legal representative of the company told the WRC that its Dublin office was the complainant's place of work. The solicitor said flexibility regarding remote working can be allowed, but subject to the overall acceptance that the Dublin office is the place of work identified in Mr Musaev's employment contract. TikTok claimed it had abided by both the letter and spirit of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. Advertisement It acknowledged that Mr Musaev's circumstances were complex but that they were fully examined in keeping with all quite extensive, internal procedures. Ireland More students expected to get higher grades as Jun... Read More The company said it had discharged all its legal obligations required under the legislation and had no case to answer. WRC adjudication officer, Michael McEntee, ruled that both oral and written evidence had shown considerable engagement between the parties, which met the requirements of the legislation. Mr McEntee said: 'The extensive case law was also demonstrative that once proper consideration is given to a request, the statutory obligations of a respondent are met.' He also noted that considerable efforts are being made to resolve the many underlying complexities of the case amicably.
Irish Examiner
22-04-2025
- Business
- Irish Examiner
TikTok did not breach employment law by refusing to allow worker injured in car crash to work remotely
The refusal of TikTok to allow an employee who had suffered serious injuries in a car crash to work full time from home was not in breach of employment legislation, the Workplace Relations Commission has ruled. The WRC found Tik Tok Technology had not breached the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 in its decision not to allow Zaurbek Musaev to work from home. Mr Musaev, an operations specialist with TikTok on a monthly salary of €3,556, claimed the company had not treated his request for remote working made in March 2024 in a lawful manner. He told the WRC he had applied for full-time remote working largely due to a very serious road traffic collision in late 2020. Mr Musaev lives in Co Monaghan and commutes to Dublin either by car or public transport. He gave evidence he found travelling very stressful and it triggered very traumatic recollections of the crash in which he was involved. He claimed the quality of his work would not be impacted by remote working and would in fact improve and be more beneficial to TikTok. A legal representative of the company told the WRC its Dublin office was the complainant's place of work. The solicitor said flexibility regarding remote working could be allowed but subject to the overall acceptance that the Dublin office was the place of work identified in Mr Musaev's employment contract. TikTok claimed it had abided by both the letter and spirit of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. It acknowledged Mr Musaev's circumstances were complex but they were fully examined in keeping with all quite extensive, internal procedures. The company said it had discharged all its legal obligations required under the legislation and had no case to answer. WRC adjudication officer Michael McEntee ruled both oral and written evidence had shown considerable engagement between the parties, which met the requirements of the legislation. Mr McEntee added: 'The extensive case law was also demonstrative that once proper consideration is given to a request, the statutory obligations of a respondent are met.' He also noted considerable efforts were being made to resolve the many underlying complexities of the case amicably.
