Dublin TikTok worker replaced by AI loses claim for unfair dismissal
Gordon Deegan
A TikTok worker made redundant at the Dublin unit of the social media giant as her work was being replaced by artificial intelligence (AI) has failed in her claim for unfair dismissal.
Iwona Bujwid was one of 150 people made redundant by TikTok in September 2024 when at the time the firm employed 2,000 people in Ireland.
The proposed restructuring involved increasing the use of AI for moderation work and the overall numbers within Ms Bujwid’s team was reduced from 100 to 52.
Initially 300 workers were told that they were at risk of redundancy. Ms Bujwid was one of five workers servicing the Polish market and the five were reduced to one.
Ms Bujwid was employed as a "Risk Investigation Specialist" from September 28th, 2020, until September 30th, 2024.
Ms Bujwid has a young child with additional needs and was, at the time of her redundancy, pregnant with her second child.
In rejecting her claim for unfair dismissal, Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator Pat Brady concluded that Ms Bujwid's redundancy was fair.
Mr Brady said the background was a company re-organisation and the proposal to use AI to carry out the monitoring work previously done by Ms Bujwid and this was not disputed by her.
The WRC adjudicator said that as far as he could see from the evidence, the selection criteria for redundancy was conducted to a fair standard, and this was confirmed by Ms Bujwid in cross-examination.
Mr Brady said the undisputed evidence was that Ms Bujwid accepted the outcome that she was one of those selected for redundancy and refused to sign the termination agreement because she was not satisfied with the level of compensation, which, he said, was well in excess of the statutory payment.
He said that all of the evidence points to the conclusion that the only issue then between the parties was the amount of the redundancy payment.
Mr Brady said there is no jurisdiction under the Unfair Dismissal Act to provide Ms Bujwid with any remedy beyond a statutory payment.
Under cross-examination at the hearing, Ms Bujwid confirmed she had not raised any issue about the redundancy process at the time and that she had been looking for a better redundancy payment.
Ms Bujwid agreed that no issues had been raised regarding the process at any of the meetings with her employer despite knowing the selection criteria and her scores.
Represented in the case by Joseph Bradley BL, instructed by Sean Ormonde Solicitors, Ms Bujwid repeated that her primary concern at a meeting with Leader of the TikTok Technology HR Business Team, Ms Emma Murray on September 11th was the amount of the ex gratia payment.
Ms Bujwid also stated that her refusal to sign the termination agreement was entirely attributable to the level of payment.
TikTok told the WRC hearing that on September 26th, 2024, Ms Bujwid said she would not sign the termination agreement because the ex-gratia payment was too low and that she was hoping to keep her job or that the redundancy would be deferred for a period.
TikTok contended that at no stage did Ms Bujwid take issue with the decision to make her role redundant, the selection criteria applied, the manner in which she was scored or the consultation process.
TikTok, who was represented by Owen Keany BL at the hearing, said Ms Bujwid’s contention that she was unfairly dismissed is without merit.
The firm said Ms Bujwid failed to provide any details whatsoever of the grounds upon which those claims are being maintained.
TikTok said a genuine redundancy situation arose in this case and the process which led to Ms Bujwid’s selection “was transparent, fair, and reasonable and followed a detailed consultation collective and individual process”.
Ms Bujwid also brought a claim of discrimination under section 77 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2021, but this was withdrawn after the hearing.
