Case Number: ADJ-00007223. Workplace Relations Commission

CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Docket NumberADJ-00007223
PartiesAn Employee v A Manufacturing Company
Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

 

Background:
The Respondent, which operates in the manufacturing   sector, currently employs approximately 230 employees. That number includes   10 Chemical Technicians, of which the Complainant is one.

The Respondent operates a number of shift patterns for the Chemical   Technicians, as follows:

  •   Permanent Day Shift (8:00 am to 4:30 pm)
  •   Permanent Evening Shift (4:30 pm to 12:30 am)
  •   Permanent Night Shift (12:30 am to 8:00 am)

The Complainant works a unique shift as follows:

  •   8:00 am to 5:00 pm on   Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday,
  •   8:00 am to 1:30 pm on Friday and
  •   12:00 am to 8:00 am on Monday.

The Complainant receives a 33% shift premium for the   12:00am/8:00am shift on a Monday.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant’s Trade Union representative stated that   the Complainant is the only person working this unique roster. The Trade Union contends that the very nature of the hours of work is a shift pattern and should command the premium rate of 33% on all hours worked by the   Complainant.

The Trade Union further contends that, in the event of the   full shift premium being paid for all hours worked, other people working the   day shift would be more likely to agree to a roster between them where each   person would only work such a shift every 5 weeks.

It was submitted that in the event the Complainant is   compelled to continue to work such a shift pattern there is a very real danger of stress setting in. It was contended that, in such an event, the company would be responsible for the Complainant’s well-being under Section 8   of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. In this regard, the Trade   Union also highlighted the Respondent’s responsibilities under Schedule 3,   General Principles of Prevention Section (4).

It was contended on the Complainant’s behalf that he   constantly feels “jet lagged” due to the changing pattern/cycle of the shift. It was further contended that this is having a major effect on the   Complainant’s well-being and health.

In conclusion, it was claimed on behalf of the Complainant   that there is no financial burden involved for the Respondent in what is   being sought as a remedy for...

To continue reading

Request your trial