Refusal of TikTok to allow employee with serious injuries to work from home not unlawful, WRC rules

Seán McCárthaigh

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.

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.

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.

It acknowledged that Mr Musaev’s circumstances were complex but that 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 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.