A State workplace watchdog has thrown out a worker's claim that the Irish arm of social media giant, TikTok had not treated his request for remote working in a lawful manner.
In the case, the Labour Court has dismissed the claim against TikTok Technology Ltd by former TikTok worker, Zaurbek Musaev under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.
The decision by the Labour Court upholds a ruling last year by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) which deemed the remote working complaint by Musaev against TikTok Technology Ltd as ‘not properly founded’ and must fail.
The case was before the Labour Court on foot of an appeal by Mr Musaev against the WRC ruling.
Musaev commenced working at TikTok in Dublin in August 2021 until November 28th, 2025, as a Quality Analyst.
Musaev’s application for full-time remote working on March 29th, 2024, was declined by his employer in May 2024.
Musaev told the Court that he is of the view that TikTok Technology failed to take into account the medical reasons he had cited in support of his application.
He submitted that the manner in which TikTok 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.
The WRC had heard last year that Musaev’s application background was complex and heavily influenced by a very serious road traffic collision in late 2020 where he was extremely fortunate to have survived.
When working for TikTok, Musaev resided in County Monaghan and commuted to Dublin either by car or public transport, and travelling was very stressful for Musaev and triggered very traumatic recollections of the road traffic collision.
The Labour Court ruling contains the email refusing Musaev’s application in May 2024, when then HR Business Partner in the TikTok Technology’s AI Data Services Division, Aideen O’Connor, stated that the request for remote working is rejected on the basis that “it will, in the company’s view, have a detrimental impact on performance”.
O’Connor stated that TikTok Technology 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.
Now working in a different role at TikTok Technology, O’Connor stated that the company believes that in-person collaboration inspires creativity and creates irreplaceable value.
O’Connor stated: “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 three days office attendance per week.”
In reply to questions from the court, O’Connor stated that, in hindsight, the email in which she had communicated the decision to refuse Musaev’s application could have been more explicit in addressing the full range of reasons Musaev had submitted in support of his request under the Act, including the medical grounds he had cited.
In the Labour Court ruling signed off by Deputy Chairman Alan Haugh, he states that the Court notes both the omission in the written decision of any reference to the medical reasons cited by Musaev in support of his request for remote working.
Haugh states that, however, having regard to O’Connor’s evidence that she was present at two in-person meetings during which the decision-makers expressly considered that aspect of Musaev’s request, the court must conclude that TikTok Technology Ltd fulfilled its statutory obligation to Musaev under the act.
Haugh stated: “The appeal fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.”
