The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A workplace dispute is brewing at a Freeport manufacturer over assertions that plans to implement a 12-hour shift system could put impacted staff “at risk” and amount to a “unilateral variation” of their employment terms.

Obie Ferguson KC, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) president and labour attorney, in a November 11, 2022, letter warned Pharmachem that requiring one person to cover a 12-hour shift represented “a health and safety concern” and alleged it could lead to liability under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Purporting to represent the electrical and instrument staff at the bulk manufacturer of pharmaceutical drugs, Mr Ferguson argued that the proposed shift system would lead to employees working more hours and less receiving less pay.

Randy Thompson, Pharmachem’s chief executive, and to whom Mr Ferguson’s letter was addressed, confirmed to Tribune Business the company is implementing a new shift system. However, he declined to comment on the letter or respond to the TUC chief on the basis that it would be “premature” to do so as the change has yet to happen.

Acknowledging that the new system was set to be implemented imminently, Mr Thompson said: “We’re not prepared to make a statement. We’ve not executed the rotation. It’s due to start next week. I’m not going to pre-empt anything. We will, if necessary, make some statement in the future but not at this time. 

“No event has happened, so I’m not going to go out there in a premature way. There’s nothing for me to respond to at this time. I would be premature and getting ahead of myself.” Mr Ferguson, in a letter sent on behalf of Pharmachem’s mechanical, electrical and instrument staff, called on the company to meet and negotiate over its planned shift system “to the benefit of all within the four walls of the company to prevent costly litigation”.

Pharmachem is non-unionised, but Mr Ferguson alleged that the last paragraph of the firm’s October 28, 2022, letter to staff on the new rotation “implies that if persons refuse to adhere to this new shift arrangement, it means that they wish to leave the company, which is coercion. Clearly this cannot be tolerated in any circumstances”.

Setting out the alleged grievances over the October 28 letter, the TUC president said: “This letter amounts to unilateral variation of their individual contract of employment and exposes the company to both wrongful and unfair dismissal claims. Their contract of employment since 2005 requires them to work 40 hours per week pursuant to the law as provided for in the Employment Act 2001 without having to work on weekends consistent with the law.

“The proposed shift as provided for in the schedule the company has provided requires them to work 12-hour shifts per day, leading to 168 hours per normal month and working weekends and holidays. Further, for those months with five weeks, the hours can be as much as 228 hours (compared to 192 hours at the low-end). This is in stark comparison to the 160 hours they presently work.”

Mr Ferguson alleged that Pharmachem was seeking to “remove” better benefits from impacted staff “in that they will work more hours and obtain less pay, in that the excess overtime will only be paid at time-and-a-half and they will have to work weekends and holidays, thereby increasing the possibility of accidents”.

“The issue of a one-man shift covering 12 hours is a health and safety concern,” the TUC president asserted. “The electrician and instrumentation responsibilities put technicians at risk when working heights and working alone. To ignore technicians working without back-up or unable to require assistance of knowledgeable persons when needed can clearly put staff in extreme danger.

“The same goes for mechanics working in confined spaces and vessel entry jobs. The Health and Safety at Work Act in article 4 provides for the duties of employers to their employees, and article 6(5) provides for items and substances used with regards to safety and health.

“One man coverage of operations over 12 hours will lead to fatigue and increase the risk of accidents, particularly in the current environment, which will make the company liable under article 17 of the Health and Safety at Work Act Chapter 321C.”