A TikTok employee based in Ireland has had her request to work exclusively from home dismissed by Ireland’s Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) – the country’s employment dispute adjudicator.
The Complainant alleged that her employer, TikTok Technology Ltd, was not aligned with Ireland’s Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 because it did not consider her application to work permanently from home.
One of the reasons cited by the employee was the difficulty she experienced in securing suitable and affordable living accommodation within reasonable distance of her place of work. In this regard, she claimed that TikTok had only considered its own business needs and had “completely disregarded” her needs as an employee.
The employee added that she did not live in Dublin (Ireland’s capital) and that commuting to the company’s premises there would require her to wake at 3am and then drive two-and-a-half hours to reach the office by 7am.
In response, TikTok informed the hearing that although the employee’s contract did provide for remote working during the Covid-19 pandemic, the contract also clearly stated that her “normal place of work” would be at its Dublin office.
In July 2023, TikTok communicated a return to office for all employees effective from October 2023 stating that all employees would be required to work in the office a minimum of three days per week, unless otherwise dictated by local laws or regulations.
TikTok submitted that the employee did not return to the office three days a week or return to the office at all but that she continued working entirely from home.
The company argued that the complainant’s view that her job could be entirely carried out remotely, did not take precedence over its own evidence-based view that employees returning to the office, even for three days per week, results in an increase in productivity and accuracy. They also submitted that in their view, problem-solving solutions are best found through in-office communication and that it is within an employer’s remit to decide what is best for its business.
In its decision to dismiss the employee’s claim, the WRC adjudication officer said it was clear from the evidence that the complainant’s request was treated very seriously by the respondent and that two members of staff – one from HR and the other a manager from the complainant’s operational area, met on several occasions to consider the request in detail.
The WRC therefore ruled that the company had complied with its obligations under section 21(1)(a) of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.
Key takeaways:
Being the first reported ruling on this relatively new legislation, the key reminder for employees and employers is that the legislation allows for a request – but not a right – to remote working. From an employer’s perspective, the case confirms the importance of ensuring that all procedural steps and timelines are adhered to when handling and deciding upon employee flexible working requests.