Ireland: WRC’s Decision on Employee’s Full-Time Remote Work Request
In the first decision of the WRC considering an employee’s right to request remote work, Karabko v TikTok Technology Ltd, it was held that TikTok did not act in breach of an employee’s ‘right to request’ remote work.
The Complainant started working at TikTok Technology Limited in January 2022. Under her contract of employment, her normal place of work was the Respondent’s office in Dublin. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions at the time, the Complainant worked remotely on a full-time basis at the start of her employment.
In June 2022, the Respondent introduced its Return to Office (“RTO”) policy, requiring employees to come into the office two days a week. The Complainant was allowed to work from home for all of 2022 on a discretionary “individual exception” basis.
In July 2023, the Respondent announced to employees that all employees living in Dublin were required to follow a hybrid working policy where they would have to attend their Dublin office at least 3 days per week. The Complainant sought to continue to work remotely on a full-time basis, which was denied by the Respondent. Despite the refusal, the Complainant continued working fully remotely. The Respondent issued a verbal warning to the Complainant, which she unsuccessfully appealed. The Complainant submitted another request for fully remote work that was refused and that led to the Complainant lodging a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in May 2024.
Under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (the “Act”), the WRC does not have authority to investigate the merits of a decision made by an employer to deny a request for remote work. It can only look at the procedural fairness in coming to the decision.
The WRC noted three specific obligations on employers under the Act, as follows:
- employers must consider a remote working request regarding its needs, the employee’s needs and the requirements of the Code;
- employers must either approve a request for remote working or notify the employee in writing of its refusal within four weeks of the receipt of the request; or
- extend this period by eight weeks further to adequately consider a request before responding.
The WRC found was in favour of the Respondent and held that it had complied with its requirements as outlined above.
This decision helpfully assures employers that the Act only provides for the right of an employee to request remote working, rather than a right to work remotely. The case highlights the importance of adhering to the procedural steps outlined in the Act and Code of Practice for Employers and Employees Right to Request Remote and Flexible Working.
