Labour Court confirms limited jurisdiction over remote working refusals

In the first known decision of the Labour Court in a case concerning a remote work request, the Labour Court confirmed that its role is not to assess in any way the merits of the employer’s decision. Rather its role is to ensure procedural compliance with the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (the 2023 Act) when it comes to decision making on remote working requests.

Background

In Zaurbek Musaev v TikTok Technology Limited, the Labour Court considered an appeal under section 27 of the 2023 Act, arising from TikTok’s refusal of a request for full-time remote working.

The employee submitted a formal remote working request in March 2024 in accordance with the 2023 Act and the Code of Practice. He cited a number of grounds, including medical reasons and a lengthy commute to and from work, in support of his request.

TikTok refused the request for full-time remote work on the basis that fully remote working would have a detrimental impact on performance, that in-person collaboration was essential and that the Dublin office was the employee’s contractual place of work. The written refusal did not expressly address the medical grounds relied on by the employee.

The employee argued that TikTok had failed to properly consider his medical circumstances, particularly as no occupational health referral or meeting took place in connection with the remote working request, in contrast to an earlier reasonable accommodation process.

Labour Court decision

The Labour Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudication Officer’s decision.

The Labour Court acknowledged that TikTok’s written refusal did not reference the employee’s medical grounds. However, the Labour Court accepted witness evidence that the decision-makers had considered the medical aspect of the request at two in-person meetings before reaching their decision.

Applying sections 20, 21 and 27 of the 2023 Act, the Labour Court was satisfied that TikTok had fulfilled its statutory obligation under section 21(1)(a) to consider the request having regard to the employer’s needs, the employee’s needs and the requirements of the Code of Practice.

The Labour Court reiterated that section 27(6) of the 2023 Act expressly precludes an Adjudication Officer/the Labour Court from assessing the merits of an employer’s decision to refuse a remote working request, or the reasons for that refusal. The Labour Court stated that it was “not the Court’s role to assess in any way the merits of the Respondent’s decision.”

Practical implications for employers

This decision provides welcome confirmation at Labour Court level that the WRC and Labour Court’s jurisdiction under the 2023 Act is focused on procedural compliance. An employer that can demonstrate genuine consideration of a remote working request, taking account of the employer’s needs, the employee’s needs and the Code of Practice, will have discharged its statutory obligations, even where the request is ultimately refused.

However, the decision also highlights a practical risk. A refusal that does not address all grounds raised by the employee may invite challenge, even where the employer’s internal deliberations were thorough. A well-drafted refusal that addresses each ground raised in the application by the employee remains the most effective way to demonstrate compliance.

Key takeaways for employers

• The Labour Court has confirmed that it cannot assess the reasonableness or merits of a refusal of a remote working request. The focus is solely on whether the employer has complied with its procedural obligations under the 2023 Act.
• Employers should ensure there is a clear record that all relevant factors, including the employer’s needs, the employee’s needs and the Code of Practice, were considered during the decision-making process.
• Where an employee cites medical or personal reasons, the refusal should explicitly acknowledge those grounds and explain why the request was nevertheless refused. Silence on a key ground may create a vulnerability should a refusal ever be challenged by an employee.
• A request under the 2023 Act is subject to a different statutory framework from a reasonable accommodation request under employment equality legislation. Nevertheless, where medical grounds are raised, employers should consider whether an occupational health referral or meeting would assist in evidencing proper consideration. Employers should also independently consider whether the requested remote working arrangement, or a version of it, ought to be facilitated as a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability. Failure to do so is more likely to result in a successful claim under employment equality legislation than it is under the 2023 Act.

For further information in relation to this topic please contact Michael Doyle, Partner, Chris Ryan, Senior Associate, or any member of the ALG Employment team.

* ALG acted for TikTok in the defence of this claim before the Labour Court.

Date published: 17 June 2026