Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Zaurbek  Musaev

TikTok Technology Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Self- Represented

C. Ryan & M Doyle of  A & L Goodbody LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by an Adjudication Officer under S 27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023

CA-00064159-001

19/06/2024

The issue in contention concerned a complaint that the Respondent employer had not treated a request for remote working made in March 2024 in a lawful manner.

The Complainnat is employed as an Operations Specialist by a large IT Company.

The employment began on the 9th August 2021 and continued at the date of the Hearing.

The rate of pay was stated to be € 3,556 Monthly for a 40 hour week.

The Complainant was Self Represented and gave an Oral testimony. He submitted a detailed Written Submission.

In essence his complaint was that an Application for full time Remote Working on the 29th March 2024 had not been treated lawfully or in any proper manner especially in view of his complicated situation.

His Application background was complex and heavily influenced by a very serious road traffic collision in late 2020. He was extremely fortunate to have survived.

He resides in County Monaghan and commutes to Dublin either by car or Public Transport. Travelling is very stressful for him 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 ,in fact it would improve and be more beneficial to the Respondent employer.

Extensive inter party correspondence including medical reports were presented in evidence to support his case.

The Respondent was represented by A & L Goodbody LLP. Oral testimony was given, and substantial written evidence provided. The Complainant’s place of work is the Dublin Office of the Respondent. 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.

In essence the Respondent case was that they had abided by the letter and spirit of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. The Complainant’s case, which it was acknowledged was indeed complex, was fully examined in keeping with all, quite extensive , internal procedures. Section 20 and 21 of the Act were referenced as guidelines.

Section 27 of the Act was finally cited where the statutory requirement precludes an Adjudication Officer from “assessing the merits of – the decision or the refusal by an Employer of an Application.

The Respondent cited considerable recent case law to support their arguments -especially Alina Karabko v TikTok Technology Ltd (ADJ-00051600)

In conclusion the Respondent case was that they had discharged all their legal obligations and there could now be no case to answer.

In reviewing this case particular attention was paid to the Legal position especially Section 20,21 and 27 of the Act. It is not necessary to verbatim reproduce them in the text.

The evidence, both Oral and Written , demonstrated a considerable engagement between the Parties. Sections 20 and 21 were clearly properly observed. Section 27 also applies.

The extensive case law was also demonstrative that once proper consideration is given to a request the Statutory obligations of a Respondent are met. Section 27 then applies to preclude an Adjudication Officer assessing the merits or otherwise of a Respondent 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.

( As an aside it was noted favourably by the Adjudication Officer that considerable efforts are being  made to resolve amicably many of the underlying complexities of the case)

Work Life Balance Act.