Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Operations Analyst

A Managed Services Provider

Representatives

Represented Himself 

Mark Comerford, IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00006259

04/07/2025

The employer is a provider of recruitment, staffing and outsourcing services for various business sectors in Ireland.  The worker commenced on November 12th 2018 on a team of 50 staff, providing operations analysis and reviews for one of the employer’s clients.  Since he started in his job, the worker has been assigned to a fixed night shift from 6.00pm until 2.00am.  He is the primary carer for his father and he has been trained to provide this care.  He attends to his father in the mornings and during the day before he starts work.

On April 21st 2025, the worker and his colleagues on his team were informed that the client had instructed that, with effect from May 19th 2025, the project they were working on would operate only on a day shift from 9.00am until 5.30pm.  The employer proposed a transitional shift commencing on April 28th, when the team would be required to work from 3.00pm until 11.00pm.

On the day of the announcement of the change, the worker wrote to his team leader and explained that, to provide care for his father, he needed to remain working on a night shift.  He said that he wasn’t looking for special treatment and that he was open to working on a different project that operated at night.  He followed up with an email the next day, outlining how important his night shift was for his family.  On April 24th, when he had been informed by a manager that there would be no exceptions to the requirement to move to a day shift, he requested a review of his situation with the possible reassignment to a different project.  He asked for his problem to be investigated in accordance with the employer’s grievance procedure.  A HR business partner replied, acknowledging the worker’s concerns and telling him that they were being actively worked on.  The worker then wrote to the HR business partner, emphasising how necessary it is for him to be able to care for his father and looking for clarity and some idea of when he would know the outcome of his request to continue working nights.

When he didn’t get any response, on April 29th, the worker wrote again to the HR business partner.  He asked for consideration to be given to his situation and he asked for an outcome by Friday, May 2nd 2025.  After that date, he said that he would submit a complaint to the WRC.  He concluded his email saying,

“Please understand that this is not a threat it’s a genuine request for support, dignity and fairness.  I remain hopeful that we can still resolve this matter respectfully.”

On April 30th, a different HR business partner replied to the worker and explained that the person he had written to on April 24th and 29th wasn’t at work.  The HR business partner who wrote to the worker on April 30th advised him that he should raise his grievance in line with the company’s grievance resolution policy.  She also advised him that he could contact the employee assistance service for support.

The worker’s position is that he had already submitted a grievance in accordance with stage 1 of the grievance procedure and, as no resolution had been achieved, he asked for a formal meeting so that his concerns could be considered at stage 2 of the procedure.  The HR business partner wrote back to the worker on May 1st and explained that the requirement to change his shift was a condition of clause 14 of his contract of employment:

“14.1  Subject to the requirements of the client, the employee’s normal hours of employment shall be from Monday to Sunday inclusive, with a time allowance provided for lunch or dinner unpaid.  Working week shall meant (sic) 36.5 to 40 hours.  Due to the nature of the role, you will be required to be flexible regarding the hours you will be scheduled during the working week.

14.5  The employer reserves the right, if it reasonably requires, to increase, reduce or otherwise vary or alter your hours or times of work.”

The HR business partner pointed out that “This means that on the terms of your employment, your shift may be changed according to operational requirements.”

The worker replied, saying that he intended to “speak openly and honestly, not just as an employee but as a person who is reaching his emotional limit.”  He said that, for several weeks, he has been “carrying the weight of uncertainty, fear and mental exhaustion.”  He said that he was trying to protect his job, his family and his dignity, but that he felt that he was doing it alone.  He said that he wasn’t avoiding work or resisting change, but he was asking for someone to acknowledge that he has responsibilities to his family and that he needed a path to “honour the company’s needs and my human limitations.”  He wrote that he understood that his contract allows for flexibility, but he said that this shouldn’t override the need to treat people with compassion, respect and fairness.  Concluding his email to the HR business partner on May 1st he said,

“Please, I ask one more time take this seriously.  Speak to me.  See me.  Show me that the company values its people, not just its processes.  I am willing to talk, to find a way forward, but I cannot keep chasing silence.”

The following day, the worker’s team lead wrote to him and said,

“Unfortunately, at this time, there are no available roles on the evening shift that align with the language requirements of your current position.  Because of this, the transition to the day shift will need to proceed as planned.”

The team lead said that the company was committed to supporting the worker and that he would continue to look for a relevant opportunity on the night shift.

In response to this email, the worker wrote to the team lead.  He said that he has worked the evening shift for six years and that he is not available in the mornings because he is the sole carer for his father.  He said that he was assigned to the Iraqi language group, although he is from Kuwait, and he does not speak the Iraqi Arab dialect.  He said that he thinks that this has limited his options.  He also said that he knew that one of his colleagues was permitted to remain on the evening shift, and he asked for the “same fair chance.”

On the same day, May 2nd 2025, the operations manager met the worker to discuss his concerns about the transfer to the night shift.  A copy of the email she sent to the worker on May 9th was included in the documents provided to me at the hearing.  It is apparent from this note that the operations manager spent some time with the worker to try to understand his circumstances and his responsibilities to his family.  She informed him that the company was committed to supporting him but also, that it’s not possible to consider the personal needs of the 50 people on the team “and there’s no way to fairly assess whose circumstances are more or less valid.”  In response to the worker’s request to find someone to replace him on the team, she said that this wasn’t possible.

On May 15th, the worker wrote to the operations manager and thanked her for her response following their meeting on May 2nd.  He said that he would accept the temporary shift arrangement, working from 3.00pm until 11.00pm for one week.  When he didn’t come to work on May 19th and 20th, the operations manager phoned the worker but she got no answer.  She sent him an email at 10.30am and asked him to contact her to let her know that he was okay.

On June 4th, the worker sent his employer a letter from his doctor.  The letter confirmed that the worker is the primary carer for his father and that he “plays a vital role in ensuring his father’s health and wellbeing are maintained.”  The service delivery manager replied and said that his case “has been escalated to HR and the relevant members of management for further review and consideration.”  The service delivery manager wrote again on June 6th and told the worker that he was expected at work on the day shift on June 9th.  She also advised him that home support services were available free of charge from the HSE.

On June 9th, the worker informed his employer that his doctor had certified him as unfit for work until July 2nd.  He complained that a colleague on his team had been permitted to remain on the night shift and he asked why he hadn’t been treated similarly.  He complained that the advice to contact the HSE was inappropriate and unqualified and he asked for a written response to his request to remain working at night.

In a reply on the same day, the service delivery manager told that worker that, although there was no role on a night shift at present, this was not a final decision and that she was exploring options across the business.

On June 20th, another service delivery wrote to the worker and, in a detailed letter, she set out some responses to his queries.  She said that requests to work on a specific shift are treated on a case-by-case basis and permission was granted to one employee to remain on the night shift based on personal circumstances, skills, experience and length of service.  She said that there wasn’t an alternative vacancy at night at present but that she and her team were “closely monitoring staffing needs…” and would contact the worker as soon as a role became available.

On July 4th, the worker submitted his grievance to the WRC.  Three weeks later, on July 28th, he was offered a return to the evening shift, which he accepted.  In his submission to the WRC, he said that he wanted to maintain his grievance against his employer because of how the situation was handled since he raised his concerns.   

The employer’s position is that the worker’s contract provides for flexibility in his working hours and for his employer to change his hours of work.  On behalf of the employer, Mr Comerford said that, as a managed services provider, the shifts must respond to client needs.  The worker was given four weeks’ notice of the change from the night shift.  He said that anyone on the same team as the worker who had a problem moving to the day shift was informed that they could move to the night shift as soon as a place was available.

Mr Comerford said that the employer was aware of the worker’s circumstances, and he was told that his case would be kept under review.  It was not in the gift of the employer to offer a shift outside the client’s demands.

Regarding the advice to the worker to contact the HSE, Mr Comerford said that the employer was looking for an alternative solution for him.  It wasn’t the employer’s intention to suggest that the HSE should provide someone to take care of the worker’s father.

At the hearing of this matter, the worker said that he told his team leader on the morning of April 21st that he wasn’t able to work on the day shift because he had was responsible for his father’s care during the day.  He followed this up with an email to the operations manager and he looked for a meeting with someone from the HR department who, he hoped, could help him to secure an alternative position on the night shift.  He was aware that a colleague with caring responsibilities who had shorter service than him was transferred to a different project so that he could remain on the night shift.

I have reviewed all the correspondence and the submissions of both parties and I listened carefully to the worker and to the representations made by Mr Comerford on behalf of the employer.  It’s clear to me that the approach of the employer to the decision of the client to have the work done during the day caused the worker to feel extremely vulnerable and distressed.  I accept that the worker’s contract provides for a change in his working hours and schedule; however, as someone who worked on the night shift for six years, that shift had become a term of his employment.  The worker informed his team lead, the operations deliver manager and a HR business partner that he had a commitment to his father that meant that he couldn’t move to the day shift.  This seems to have fallen on deaf ears and the consistent response was along the lines of, “you are expected to transfer to the day shift.”

I was informed at the hearing that 2,000 people are employed in the company.  In the current employment market, I find it difficult to believe that in May 2025, until a suitable role was available, some position on a night shift couldn’t have been found for the worker.

Having reviewed the correspondence, it seems to me that, rather than meeting him and listening to his needs, the management and the HR team took a detached approach to the worker’s circumstances.  It is certainly unusual for an employee to ask a manager to “speak to me” and, from what I can deduce, this failure to engage face to face with the worker caused him to feel unseen and unheard.  The worker was responsible for his father’s care during the day, and, having managed this responsibility and his job for six years, no doubt at some personal cost, he was entitled to be treated with more respect.

I understand the contractual obligations of the employer to the client, and I accept that it was a condition of the contract that the shift comprising 50 workers could be changed.  However, in the absence of an option to move to the day shift, the employer’s consistent instruction to the worker that he was expected to transfer to the day shift was unhelpful.  In the end, this resulted in him feeling stressed out and having to take sick leave.  This may have been avoided by simply asking the worker to take unpaid leave or putting him on temporary lay-off until a suitable job could be found on the night shift.

Three months after he was informed that his team was required to move to the day shift, a position was found for the worker on a different team and, having been absent since May 19th 2025, he returned to work in early August.  It is my view that more direct engagement with the worker could have avoided his feelings of stress and the need for him to attend his doctor.  A short period of lay-off with a commitment to a return to the night shift as soon a role became available may have been acceptable to him and, ultimately, could have avoided the need for a hearing at the WRC.

I am satisfied that the worker’s grievance was resolved on July 28th 2025 when he was offered a role on the evening shift.  From an employee relations perspective therefore, the matter is resolved.  I would appeal to the employer to review how the worker’s case was handled, and to consider a more creative and compassionate approach from here on.  Finally, in recognition of the stress suffered by the worker, I recommend that the employer present him with a gift voucher to the value of €1,000.

Change of shift, flexibility, caring responsibilities