WLBD261

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00052437 (CA-00064159-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 16 February 2023.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 May 2026. 

The following is the Court's Decision:

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Mr Zaurbek Musaev (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00052437, dated 8 April 2025) under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 18 May 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 28 May 2026.

The Factual Background

The Complainant was employed by Tiktok Technology Limited (‘the Respondent’) from 9 August 2021 until 28 November 2025 as a Quality Analyst. On 29 March 2024, the Complainant submitted a written request in accordance with the Act and the associated Code of Practice on the Right to Request Remote Work for fully remote working arrangements. The Complainant set out a number of reasons in support of his application. The application was declined. The Complainant told the Court that he is of the view that the Respondent failed to take into account the medical reasons he had cited in support of his application. He submitted that the manner in which the Respondent dealt with his request under the Act contrasted significantly with its approach when dealing with requests that he had made for reasonable accommodation for a disability. He had been referred for an occupational health assessment and had in-person meetings to discuss his reasonable accommodation requests but his application under the Act did not occasion either a referral to occupational health or a meeting with him, he submitted.

Evidence of Ms Aideen O’Connor

The Witness told the Court that she is currently employed by the Respondent as a Workplace Relations Partner but at the material time she was a HR Business Partner in the Respondent’s AI Data Services Division. She said that she did not have any role in the decision-making process regarding the Complainant’s request under the Act but that she had facilitated the processing of the request and supported the decision-makers. This included attendance at two in-person meetings at which the request was formally considered, as well as attendance during virtual discussions via Lark. The Witness also corresponded with the Complainant on 10 April 2024 to request additional information from him that had been sought by the decision-makers and ultimately communicated the decision-makers’ outcome to the Complainant by email dated 24 May 2024.

When asked by the Court, the Witness confirmed that she was present at two in-person meetings with the decision-makers during which the latter expressly considered the medical reasons submitted by the Complainant in support of his request under the Act and the associated documentation he had supplied. The Witness – also in reply to questions from the Court – stated that, in hindsight, the email in which she had communicated the decision to refuse the Complainant’s application could have been more explicit in addressing the full range of reasons the Complainant had submitted in support of his request under the Act, including the medical grounds he had cited. She also accepted that it would have been of benefit to the Complainant had a meeting taken place with him to discuss his application.

Outcome Correspondence

It is useful to reproduce Ms O’Connor’s email of 24 May 2024 in full here as it is the obvious source of the Complainant’s concerns and the genesis of the within appeal.

“Dear Zaurbek

We are writing to you in relation to your recent application for a remote working arrangement received on 29th March ’24.

Thank you for your patience as we looked into your request. We have come to the following conclusion having regard to both the needs of the business and your request.

After careful consideration, we must inform you that your request for a remote working arrangement is rejected on the basis that it will, in the Company’s view, have a detrimental impact on performance. Further information on the reasons for this rejection are outlined below.

The company does not regard lack of proximity to the Dublin office or transportation issues as a reasonable basis for the business to approve a request for full-time remote working for the following reasons:

• The Company believes that in-person collaboration inspires creativity and creates irreplaceable value. As such, in the Company’s view, in order to facilitate sufficient team engagement, collaboration and business delivery, your role is more efficiently performed on site. This business rationale [is] in line with our current policy of 3 days office attendance per week.
• As you are aware, the company’s office (located in Dublin) is your primary place of work. This was communicated clearly throughout the recruitment and selection process for your role, as well as in your contract of employment.
• The company maintains it is the personal responsibility of all employees to ensure they are available to attend the company’s office in line with the company’s policy of 3 days office attendance per week, and make any arrangements (e.g. personal transportation) which may be needed to enable their office attendance accordingly.

We are available to meet with you for a further discussion should you require clarification on any of the above points, or the content of this email.

Kind regards,

Aideen”

The Law

Section 21 of the Act sets out an employer’s obligations when presented with a request for flexible workings arrangements by an employee under section 20:

“(1) An employer who receives a request for a remote working arrangement submitted in accordance with section 20(3) shall—

(a) consider that request, having regard to—

(i) his or her needs,

(ii) the employee's needs, and

(iii) the requirements of the code of practice, and

(b) as soon as reasonably practicable but, subject to subsection (2), not later than 4 weeks after receipt of the request—

(i) approve the request, which approval shall include an agreement prepared and signed by the employer and employee setting out—

(I) the details of the remote working arrangement, and

(II) the date of the commencement and the expiration, if any, of the remote working arrangement,

(ii) provide a notice in writing informing the employee that the request has been refused and of the reasons for the refusal, or

(iii) where subsection (2) applies, provide a notice in writing to the employee that the employer has extended the 4 week period under this subsection for a further period specified in the notice.

(2) Where an employer is having difficulty assessing the viability of the request for a remote working arrangement, the employer may extend the 4 week period referred to in subsection (1) by a further period not exceeding 8 weeks.

(3) When the agreement referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i) is signed by the employer and the employee, the employer shall retain the agreement and provide a copy of the agreement to the employee who shall retain it.”

Section 27 of the Act, in material part, provides:

“(1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Act of 2015, or a decision of the Labour Court under section 44 of that Act on appeal from the first-mentioned decision in relation to a dispute between an employee and his or her employer relating to the fulfilment by the employer of his or her obligations under section 21(1) may—

(a) direct that the employer comply with paragraph (a) of section 21(1),

(b) direct that the employer comply with any of the requirements of paragraph (b) of section 21(1) as if the reference in that subsection to the date that is 4 weeks after the receipt of the employee's request under section 20 was a reference to such date as may be specified in the direction,

(c) award compensation in favour of the employee concerned to be paid by the employer concerned, or

(d) specify both a direction referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), or both, and an award referred to in paragraph (c).

(2) ….

(6) In making a decision referred to in subsection (1), (2) or (3), an adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, shall not assess the merits of—

(a) the decision of the employer reached following his or her consideration under section 21(1)(a) of the employee's request,

(b) the refusal by the employer under section 21(1)(b)(ii) or the reasons for such refusal given under that provision,

(c) the decision of the employer to terminate, under section 22, a remote working arrangement or the grounds given by the employer under that section for such termination,

(d) the refusal by the employer under section 24(3)(b)(ii) or the reasons for such refusal given under that provision, or

(e) the refusal by the employer under section 24(4) or the alternative date proposed under that provision.

(7) In this section, “remuneration” includes allowances in the nature of pay and benefits in lieu of or in addition to pay.”

Discussion and Decision

The Court notes both the omission in the Respondent’s written decision dated 24 May 2024 of any reference to the medical reasons cited by the Complainant in support of his request for remote working. The Court also notes Ms O’Connor’s acknowledgment that this was a shortcoming on the part of the Respondent. However, having regard to Ms O’Connor’s evidence that she was present at two in-person meetings during which the decision-makers expressly considered that aspect of the Complainant’s request, the Court must conclude that the Respondent fulfilled its statutory obligation to the Complainant pursuant to section 21(1)(a) in so far as it considered the Complainant’s medical issues when determining his request for remote working. It is not the Court’s role to assess in any way the merits of the Respondent’s submission.

The appeal fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
FC	______________________
02/06/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.