Following the commencement of the Right to Request Remote Work and the publication of a Code of Practice back in March of this year, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has issued its first decision on a remote working case: Alina Karabko v Tiktok Technology Ltd.
Background
The complainant, Alina Karabko, commenced employment with Tiktok during the COVID-19 Pandemic. While her employment contract stipulated that her normal place of work was TikTok’s Dublin office, she was allowed to work fully remotely, with the understanding that she would return to the physical office upon her employer’s request. Following the lifting of Covid restrictions, Tiktok announced a phased return to office policy, whereby all employees were required to work in the office two days a week.
The Request
Shortly after the Code of Practice was published, the complainant, who was renting outside of Dublin, submitted a request to work fully remote. In her application, she set out the details of the proposed working arrangement, the duration, and the reasons for the request. The employer acknowledged receipt of the request and informed her that they would need a further four weeks to consider it. Once the employer had reached the decision to refuse the complainant’s request, they notified her in writing, setting out reasons for the refusal. TikTok opted not to grant the exemption following careful consideration of a variety of factors, including the company’s desire to ensure better team collaboration and knowledge sharing.
The Case
Karabko subsequently lodged a complaint to the WRC, alleging that the employer had not considered her needs and had therefore not conducted the decision-making process in an objective, fair and reasonable manner, as required by the Code.
When reviewing the case, the Adjudication Officer (AO) clarified that the WRC does not have authorisation to assess the reasoning behind an employer’s decision to refuse a remote work request. Instead, their remit is strictly limited to assessing whether the employer considered the request in line with the requirements of the Code. In this case, the AO noted that although the complainant made a comprehensive case for full-time remote work, the employer had complied fully with the Code.
The AO concluded that it is within the employer’s discretion to decide what is best for the business. The employee’s belief that her job can be carried remotely does not override the employer’s evidence-based assessment that returning to the office improves productivity and accuracy. The reasons provided by TikTok for denying the request were deemed “logical and reasonable,” and the complainant’s claim was rejected.
Key Takeaways
The outcome of this case will undoubtedly be welcomed by employers, as it reinforces their discretion to make decisions that are best for their business, provided they comply with the Code.
Employers facing similar requests should ensure they follow the decision-making deadlines outlined in the Code and give objective, fair and reasonable consideration to the request, balancing the needs of the business with those of the employee. Overall, compliance with the Code is key to avoiding sanctions.
For more on the Right to Request Remote Work and WRC’s Code of Practice, please see here.