Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Driver

Logistics provider

Representatives

Emma Cutlip

SIPTU

Sarah Dowling

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 - 00005553

04/11/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side.

The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 4th of November 2025.

The Complainant was represented by a member of SIPTU. The Complainant gave evidence on his own behalf. I was also provided with a comprehensive submission from the Complainant on the 12th of May 2026.

The Complainant set out his dispute in the complaint form as follows:

I have an established contractual right through terms agreed prior to TUPE between K's to S and now to DL whereby I work 9-hour shifts. DL have changed that and will not recognize the contractual terms of my employment from before TUPE.

My contractual right is also well established as custom and practice.

The Complainant alleges that he is entitled to have his specific working arrangements be acknowledged by the Respondent.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent was represented by the business representative group known as IBEC. The Respondent provided me with two written submissions dated 1st of May 2026. I have additionally heard from a number of witnesses for the Respondent including the HR Manager and the Site Lead Manager.

The Respondent rejects that there is any special arrangement attaching to the Complainant’s hours of work.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

There is an obligation on the parties to an IR dispute to demonstrate that they have engaged locally in a good faith process of resolution before presenting any matter to the WRC. The WRC should be seen as the last port of call. Not the first. There is, therefore, an expectation that parties will have exhausted the workplace mechanisms for bringing a grievance or a complaint. This has happened herein.

The worker herein is a driver of heavy trucks and lorries. It seems that the Complainant started his career as far back as 2003 at which time he was working with K. In October of 2010 the Complainant moved to Employer S by way of a transfer of undertaking. It was understood at that time that the Complainant was contracted to work a 45-hour week and whilst the paperwork was silent on how these hours were to be assigned the Complainant understood that he would be expected to work five nine hour days each working week. This was an important feature of the transfer from his perspective, as the Complainant had entered into this specific arrangement after years of working a four-day week of twelve hours per day.

I am satisfied that the Employer S fully recognised the Complainant (together with his colleagues) were expected to work a five-day week with the well-known expectation that the Complainant would be assigned work on the basis of a nine-hour on each day of work. In this regard, I am accepting that the Complainant is entitled to view the HR Managers email of the 9th of December 2010 to be confirmation of this arrangement and I accept that the Complainant has come to rely on the comfort set out in this email/letter and indeed both the Complainant and Employer S worked on the basis of this arrangement until 2016. I am therefore satisfied that there is an implied term in the Contract of Employment that the Complainant will be expected to work five nine-hour shifts over a seven-day week.  I would even go so far as to suggest that the Complainant is entitled to expect that he will commence his shift at 6am and work through to 3pm.

It seems to me that the Complainant appears to still be working off a Contract of Employment issued in 2006 by the Employer K. Certain of these terms and conditions were updated by K when the Complainant transferred to S in 2010. Other issues are implied by way of custom and practise and, to my mind, have no less legal force by reason of this origin.

In 2016 the Complainant was once again transferred to a new Employer DL (the Respondent). The Complainant took for granted that his terms and conditions of employment would transfer with him and in fact I accept that the new Employer- the Respondent herein - has largely respected this entitlement.

I am satisfied that the Complainant has covetously guarded his right to be engaged five days a week for nine-hour shifts commencing at 6am. I understand, though did not go into great detail, that the Complainant has commitments at home that make this arrangement really important. I also understand that the Complainant has from time to time communicated with the scheduling personnel within the Respondent company to impress upon them that his arrangements are set in stone. It seems every time a new person comes on board, the Complainant indicates the arrangement as they pertain to him. There has not been any pushback on this assertion which again tends to suggest that this has been recognised as an implied and fixed term of this Contract of Employment.

I am further satisfied that the Complainant recognises that some flexibility is always required and therefore if a day takes longer than nine hours on the road then he will take that in his stride. Both he and the Employer accept that this is routinely what happens. The Complainant has difficulty with what he says is any formal planning that he shall be expected to work more than 9-hour shift.

In and around late 2024 the Complainant noticed that the shift schedule was being changed such that the Complainant’s planned day was being arranged so that the Complainant was out for much longer days. Instead of aiming to finish at 3pm the Complainant was being assigned hours which left him finishing at 5pm or 6pm which creates a whole other set of commute issues for him. I accept that the Employer was not scheduling the Complainant for more than the Contracted 45 hours per week but was instead distributing the hours differently so that the Complainant on one occasion was assigned a day of work due to last 15 hours.

The Complainant asserted his entitlement to have his nine-hour day recognised and restored but the Employer was not inclined to abide by this request. The Employer through a Grievance process into this issue asserted that the Contract was silent on how the 45-hour working week should be assigned and placed no value at all on the assurances given to the Complainant by a HR Manager in a previous employment arrangement. In fact, the Respondent asserted that this issue never arose in the due diligence part of the process of the transfer of undertaking.

Be that as it may, I am satisfied that throughout his employment with the Respondent the arrangement of allowing the Complainant work nine hour shifts five days a week was in fact adhered to. I would tentatively suggest that this must be because the Complainant made an irrefutable case for this arrangement. Whilst I appreciate that an Employer is entitled to look for flexibility and other adjustments these cannot be imposed where they cut across contractual entitlements. The failure to discuss these issues with the Complainant in late 2024, is what brought the Complainant to raise a grievance which has now wound up in front of the WRC industrial relations infrastructure.

In the course of the hearing (and on a more positive note) it was tacitly agreed that the Complainant’s situation is effectively red circled as having a particular arrangement applicable to him. I understand that scheduling even have a flag beside the Complainant’s name wherein it is acknowledged that he is not to be given more than nine hours per shift.