An artist who went for a job at TikTok’s Irish arm said she was told the firm’s “fast growth and expansion” meant it could not answer questions she had about her contract and it would be withdrawing the job offer instead.
That’s according to a submission to the Workplace Relations Commission by Daniela Krause, who made a complaint under the Terms of Employment Information Act against TikTok Technology Ltd last year.
The WRC heard that after interviewing for a job as a client services specialist, Ms Krause was offered a role on March 16 2021 and agreed to start on May 4 of that year.
She said she had concerns about the contract’s terms in respect of overtime, intellectual property rights and the prospect of “having to settle client claims at her own expense”.
Clarification
Ms Krause said she consulted with the Citizens’ Information Centre and the legal advice group, Community Law and Mediation, which she said “regarded these conditions as unreasonable and not suited for this particular job role”.
She told the adjudication hearing that rather than “providing clarification on her questions”, TikTok’s human resources (HR) department told her that due to the firm’s “fast growth and expansion” it would be “unable to liaise with internal departments for gathering full information”.
For that reason, she said, the company withdrew its job offer.
She said she had rejected another job offer after receiving an initial job offer letter from TikTok – and argued the withdrawal of the job offer because she asked questions about the contract was “unethical”.
In emails to TikTok’s HR department submitted to the commission, Ms Krause said the question of a six-day working week was “not mentioned in any interview”.
“If this is the requirement of this particular role, then we would need to discuss about a different salary package,” she wrote.
She also asked about a clause on intellectual property.
“I take this topic in general very serious as I am myself also a registered artist who does not tolerate any copyright infringements, misuse of my intellectual property and own copyrights,” she wrote, seeking clarification on what the contract meant in reference to indemnifying the company for “claims against employees” by its clients.
Ms Krause also told the social firm she “would not allow any monitoring” of her private phone by the company and said she expected it to provide a company device.
“Where you perform any excessive monitoring, then I kindly ask to explain how you divide between private and professional use on one internet line,” she added.
Contract
She also asked for a copy of an employee handbook referred to in the contract and asked whether she qualified for its pension and healthcare schemes during her probationary period.
TikTok’s barrister, Ciaran Doherty, told the commission that Ms Krause wrote to the company on 25th March “demanding her contract of employment by the following day”.
Counsel said that Ms Krause told the HR officer dealing with her that she “could not see why it would take so long to send her a contract and that without a contract she did not regard the job offer as valid”.
She received the contract the following day, but told the firm she had “queries” with the document and “required answers” before she would agree to sign it, Mr Doherty said.
Mr Doherty said a HR worker wrote back the following Monday but that Ms Krause took the position that there were still issues with the contract.
The following Tuesday, 31st March, 2021, the HR manager spoke by phone with the complainant and told her the job offer was being rescinded, a message later confirmed by email.
Ms Krause claimed the company had breached the act on 31st March, 2021, by withdrawing a job offer made earlier that month after she queried the terms of the contract of employment.
Employment
Mr Doherty argued that as Ms Krause had not started employment with TikTok, there “could not be a breach” of the Terms of Employment Act.
Adjudicating officer Breiffni O’Neill noted in a decision published this morning that the facts of the matter were not disputed by the parties and it had not been necessary to take sworn evidence.
He found that although Ms Krause had received a job offer from TikTok, it had been rescinded in writing over a month before her proposed start date.
She was “never an employee”, he wrote, and therefore she had no legal standing to bring her claim and he had no jurisdiction to hear it.
