Kristina Roberts
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in Ireland has rejected a complaint filed by a TikTok employee who claimed the company did not handle his request to work from home fairly. The case was reviewed by Adjudicator Michael McEntee, who ruled that the worker’s complaint was “not properly founded” and could not succeed.
The employee, Zaurbek Musaev, works as an operations specialist at TikTok’s Irish branch, TikTok Technology Ltd. He started his job in August 2021 and was still employed by the company at the time of the hearing in January 2025, earning a monthly salary of €3,556. Musaev had applied for full-time remote work on March 29, 2024, arguing that his situation justified the request.
Musaev’s case was complicated due to a serious car accident he was involved in back in late 2020. He was lucky to survive the crash, but the experience left him with lasting trauma. Living in County Monaghan, he had to commute to TikTok’s Dublin office either by car or public transport, which he found extremely stressful. The daily travel brought back painful memories of the accident, affecting his mental well-being.
He believed that working remotely would not only ease his stress but also improve his performance, making him more productive for the company. To support his case, he submitted medical reports and exchanged several letters with his employer explaining his situation.
However, TikTok, represented by the law firm A & L Goodbody LLP, argued that Musaev’s employment contract clearly stated that his workplace was the Dublin office. While the company acknowledged that it could allow some flexibility with remote work, it maintained that the office remained the official place of work unless agreed otherwise.
Adjudicator McEntee noted that TikTok had followed both the rules and the spirit of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. The company stated that it had carefully reviewed Musaev’s request, taking into account his difficult circumstances, but ultimately decided against full-time remote work based on its policies.
TikTok also referred to Section 27 of the same Act, which states that an Adjudication Officer cannot question an employer’s decision to approve or deny a remote work request. The law only requires that the employer properly considers the request—not that they must grant it. TikTok insisted that it had met all legal requirements and that the complaint should be dismissed.
After reviewing both sides, McEntee agreed with TikTok, stating that the company had acted within the law. He explained that while Musaev’s situation was unfortunate, the WRC’s role was not to decide whether remote work should be allowed but only to check if the employer followed the correct process. Since TikTok had done so, the complaint could not proceed.
This case highlights the ongoing debate over remote work policies, especially for employees with health or personal challenges. While many companies have adopted flexible work arrangements since the pandemic, not all requests can be accommodated if they conflict with company policies or contracts.
For now, Musaev will have to continue working from the Dublin office unless TikTok decides to reconsider his request in the future. The ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, showing that while employees can ask for remote work, employers have the final say as long as they follow legal procedures.
The decision also reminds workers that even with valid reasons, remote work is not an automatic right unless specified in their contract or supported by company policy. Employers, on the other hand, must ensure they review such requests fairly and document their decisions properly to avoid legal disputes.
As remote work remains a hot topic in workplaces worldwide, cases like this will likely continue to arise, testing the balance between employee needs and business requirements. For now, the WRC’s ruling makes it clear that unless an employer violates the law in handling a request, employees may have limited options if their appeal is denied.
The outcome has sparked discussions among labor rights groups, with some arguing that the law should offer stronger protections for workers in special circumstances. Others believe companies should have the flexibility to decide what works best for their operations.
Meanwhile, TikTok has not commented publicly on the case beyond its legal arguments. The company continues to operate under its existing policies, leaving employees like Musaev to adapt to the current rules.
This case serves as a reminder for both employers and employees to clearly understand their rights and obligations regarding remote work. Workers with unique circumstances may need to seek legal advice or negotiate directly with their employers rather than relying solely on formal complaints.
