Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Warehouse Worker

A Retail Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

Lorna Lynch SC instructed by

Walter Beatty  Flynn O’Driscoll LLP

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 - 00005732

24/11/2025

The Worker referred a trade dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The dispute concerns the Employer's requirement that the Worker participate in weekend working as part of a roster applicable to his grade following organisational changes within the Employer's warehouse operation.

The Worker has been employed by the Employer since 2017 and, for a significant period, worked predominantly a Monday to Friday pattern. Following the integration of the one function of the operation into another department, the Employer determined that all workers in the grade similar to the Worker within the amalgamated area   would participate in a weekend roster in order to provide management cover and ensure an equitable distribution of weekend duties.

The Worker contended that the requirement to participate in regular weekend working represented a departure from a longstanding arrangement which had existed for many years. The matter was the subject of a formal grievance and a subsequent appeal, both of which were unsuccessful. The dispute was thereafter referred to the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Worker submitted that for in excess of seven years he had predominantly worked a Monday to Friday pattern and that this arrangement had become established within the workplace. It was contended that weekend working arose only in exceptional circumstances, including periods of increased operational demand such as Brexit-related pressures and the Covid-19 pandemic, or where additional assistance was voluntarily provided.

The Worker maintained that management had been fully aware of this arrangement and had consistently rostered him on that basis. It was submitted that the Employer's decision to require regular weekend participation represented a unilateral departure from a longstanding practice upon which he had relied throughout his employment.

The Worker further contended that there had been an understanding with a former manager that his weekend commitments would be limited. He submitted that his historical roster patterns, supporting documentation and witness statements demonstrated that weekend working was not a normal feature of his role.

The Worker argued that the Employer's explanation that his previous working pattern arose solely because of operational requirements was inconsistent with the practical reality of the workplace. He submitted that the Goods In function operated on a seven-day basis and that his longstanding roster pattern reflected an accepted arrangement rather than a temporary operational necessity.

The Worker also criticised aspects of both the grievance and appeal processes. He submitted that certain individuals were not consulted, that documentation relied upon by him was not given sufficient weight and that the conclusions reached did not adequately address his contention that a longstanding custom and practice had developed over time.

The Worker therefore maintained that he had been treated unfairly and sought restoration of his previous Monday to Friday working arrangement.

The Employer rejected the assertion that the Worker had any contractual entitlement to work exclusively from Monday to Friday.

The Employer submitted that the Worker was employed as a Deputy Section Head within a warehouse operation that has operated on a seven-day basis since its establishment. It was noted that neither the Worker’s contract of employment nor any supplementary agreement restricted his working pattern to weekdays only. The Employer further pointed to contractual provisions which contemplated weekend working and payment of Sunday premiums.

The Employer submitted that the Worker had, in fact, worked weekend shifts on a number of occasions between 2019 and 2024. While accepting that the frequency of such work was relatively limited, it was maintained that this reflected the operational demands of the function of where he worked at that time rather than any special arrangement or entitlement.

The Employer stated that following the integration of an amalgamated structure, it became necessary for all Deputy Section Heads to participate in weekend cover. The objective was to ensure fairness amongst deputies and to provide appropriate management supervision across all operational periods.

The Employer disputed the existence of any agreement limiting the Worker’s weekend commitments. It was submitted that no documentary confirmation of such an agreement existed and that the former manager alleged to have made the arrangement denied that any such agreement had been reached.

The Employer further submitted that it had engaged extensively with the Worker regarding his concerns. A formal grievance process was conducted, meetings were held, documentation was considered and detailed written outcomes were provided. The Worker subsequently exercised his right of appeal, and the appeal was conducted by a senior manager who had no prior involvement in the matter.

The Employer maintained that the dispute arose from the Worker’s disagreement with a legitimate operational decision rather than from any unfair treatment on the part of management.

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

 The issue before me is not whether the Employer was legally entitled to require the Worker to participate in weekend working. Rather, the question arising under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 is whether the Worker was treated unfairly in the manner in which the Employer addressed and implemented the revised roster arrangements. Having considered the submissions made by both parties, the documentation furnished and the accounts provided during the hearing, I am not persuaded that the Worker was treated unfairly.

I accept that the Worker enjoyed a largely Monday to Friday working pattern for a considerable period. However, the material before me also establishes that he worked weekend shifts on a recurring basis between 2019 and 2024, albeit with less frequency than other Deputy Section Heads. This is inconsistent with the proposition that the Worker enjoyed an absolute entitlement to weekday-only working.

I further note that the Worker advanced a number of different formulations of the arrangement upon which he relied. At various stages, the arrangement was described as a Monday to Friday pattern, a custom and practice, and an agreement to work a limited number of Sundays annually. While it is clear that the Worker benefited from a favourable roster pattern over a prolonged period, I am not satisfied that the material before me establishes a sufficiently certain and universally recognised arrangement that would prevent the Employer from revising rostering arrangements following organisational restructuring.

I accept the Employer's position that the Worker’s historical working pattern was influenced by the operational requirements of the function of the area where he previously worked and the comparatively limited level of weekend activity within that area. Following the amalgamation of two departments, the operational context changed. In those circumstances, it was reasonable for management to review staffing arrangements and seek a more equitable distribution of weekend duties amongst Deputy Section Heads.

I am also satisfied that the Employer's objective of ensuring fairness amongst Deputy Section Heads and maintaining management supervision across all operational periods constituted a legitimate business consideration. There was no suggestion that the Worker was singled out or treated differently from others occupying comparable positions.

Particular weight attaches to the manner in which the Employer dealt with the Worker’s concerns. The information before me demonstrates that the Worker was afforded a full grievance process, was provided with an opportunity to articulate his concerns, received a detailed written outcome, and subsequently exercised a right of appeal. The appeal process involved a comprehensive review of the issues raised and culminated in a detailed written determination. While the Worker strongly disagrees with the conclusions reached, disagreement with an outcome is not, of itself, indicative of unfairness. Having reviewed the grievance and appeal processes in their entirety, I am satisfied that the Employer engaged meaningfully with the Worker’s concerns and afforded him fair procedures throughout.

In all of the circumstances, I find that the Employer acted reasonably in introducing the revised rostering arrangements and acted fairly in its handling of the Worker’s grievance and appeal.

Section 13 of Industrial Relations Act 1969. Weekend Working