FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS LTD T/A G4S - AND - EOIN SHEERAN (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Decision r-132761-wt-13/MH.
BACKGROUND:
2. Mr Eoin Sheeran (the Complainant) was employed by G4S Secure Solutions Ltd (the Respondent) as a security officer with effect from 1 October 2010. In September 2013 the Company proposed changes to the work rosters on the Cadbury site. The revised roster included a number of consecutive shifts that were separated by a break of less than 11 hours duration. The Complainant raised the matter with management. Management did not address the issue at that time.
Instead, after the matter had been escalated to a higher level, the Complainant was transferred from the site to another location as a result of an alleged refusal to carry out an instruction to train another member of staff on the security procedures specific to the Cadbury site. That alleged refusal to follow instructions took place on the 13/14 August 2012. The Complainant was transferred on 27 September 2012. He unsuccessfully appealed to senior management against that decision. He subsequently submitted a complaint to the Rights Commissioner alleging that the roster infringed section 11 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the Act).
The Rights Commissioner held that, as the Complainant was never required to work the shift pattern set out in the proposed roster the Respondent did not infringe Section 11 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 in respect of the Complainant and the complaint was not well founded.
The Complainant appealed against the decisions to this Court.
The case came on for hearing on 21 March 2014.
DETERMINATION:
Complainant’s Case
The Complainant raises a net point. He argues that the proposed roster did not make provision for an 11 hour break between consecutive shifts. He argues that as the roster was introduced he had a liability to work it. He argues that the liability gave rise to an infringement of the the Act.
Respondent’s Position
The Respondent argues that it proposed a revised shift roster that contained consecutive shifts without making provision for an 11 hour break between them. It argues that when this was brought to its attention it altered the shift pattern to bring it into line with Section 11 of the Act. It further argues that the Complainant was not required to work consecutive shifts without an 11 hour break and consequently no infringement of the Organisation of Working Time Act arises.
Findings of the Court
Section 11 of the Act states:
- An employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer.
It is common case that while the proposed roster infringed Section 11 of the Act the Complainant did not work the impugned shifts.
Accordingly the Court finds that the complaint is not well founded.
Determination
The Complaint is not well founded. The decision of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th August, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.