Duncan Inverarity is a former a partner and Head of A&L Goodbody's Employment Law group and practiced exclusively in the area of employment law and industrial relations in multiple jurisdictions. Duncan advised public and private sector employers on both contentious and non-contentious matters. He advised Board rooms across Ireland and abroad on strategic and complex employment and industrial relations matters. Duncan also specialised in crisis management for clients and advised on some of the most high profile corporate issues in Ireland. Duncan regularly appeared for clients in the Workplace Relations Commission, the Circuit Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Duncan also acted for partnerships in mediated settlements and in proceedings in the High Court.
The Complainant challenged TikTok’s refusal of a full-time remote working request linked to past road traffic accidents and a long commute. TikTok relied on the contractual requirement that the Dublin office was the place of work and argued the request had been properly considered under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.
The Complainant brought a complaint against the Respondent for alleged unlawful treatment in relation to a remote working request.
The Complainant submitted a full-time remote working request, based on serious road traffic collisions in 2020, and a lengthy commute he had from Monaghan to Dublin.
The Complainant claimed that TikTok had not treated his request for remote working in a lawful manner.
TikTok highlighted that flexibility regarding remote working could be allowed but subject to the overall acceptance that the Dublin office was the place of work identified by the employment contract.
TikTok cited Section 27 of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (the 2023 Act) 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 Adjudication Officer focused on Sections 20, 21, and 27 of the 2023 Act and noted that once proper consideration is given to a request the statutory obligations of an employer are met.
The AO agreed with the Respondent that Section 27 of the 2023 Act precludes an Adjudication Officer from assessing the merits or otherwise of an employer decision or refusal.
Accordingly, the case was deemed not properly founded.
Once proper consideration is given to a remote working request the merits of the decision cannot be challenged.
The full case can be found here.
This case is also referenced in an article discussing how employers should approach remote working requests where an employee is seeking to work from home on disability grounds. It is used to illustrate the importance of following the statutory process and properly considering each request.
I have an employee who is requesting to work remotely on grounds of disability. How do I handle it?
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
