Case Number: ADJ-00013412. Workplace Relations Commission

• Judgment Date: 01 August 2018
• Year: 2018
• Docket Number: ADJ-00013412
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Relief Process Operator v A Company

ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013412

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Relief Process Operator	A Company

Dispute:

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00017706-001	28/02/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/07/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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 Worker is employed as a Relief Process Operator within the plant and is required to provide cover in position for which he has received an appropriate training. The Worker was issued with a second stage written (first) warning on 15th April 2016. He contends that the decision to issue him with a disciplinary sanction was unfair and unwarranted on both procedural and substantive basis.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

The Worker submits that he is employed as a relief process operator within the plant and is required to provide cover in positions for which he has received appropriate training. This facility is required to provide cover in circumstances where there is a requirement to fill gaps in the production process arising from sick leave etc. The requirement on the Employer under the provisions of the Company/Union Agreement is to provide 7 days’ notice where there exists a requirement for an employee to change shift pattern. During this notice period the current agreement provides that the existing production team will cover the process requirements. On Friday 4th March 2016 while completing a night shift the Worker was advised by Mr V, Warehouse Manager that the company were changing his current shift pattern and that he was being instructed to commence a new shift pattern on the following Monday. The Worker advised Mr V that he was willing to change his shift arrangement but because of family commitments he was not in a position to affect the shift change immediately and that he did require appropriate notice. Mr V insisted that the shift change would be implemented immediately. This matter was placed in dispute by the Trade Union and accordingly the Worker attended his next working day as per existing roster. On resuming work the Worker was approached by his supervisor Mr P and was advised that Mr V was insisting the Worker would comply with the shift change. Again, the Worker advised that it was not feasible for him to do so and that he was exercising his entitlement to receive appropriate notice. The Worker further advised that he did not require the full seven days’ notice and was in a position to commence the new shift pattern on 9th March 2016. On the basis of this dispute Mr V...