Policy on Shift Swapping Shift swapping is a common practice in modern workplaces both in the public and private sectors. Organizations including federal agencies have established shift swapping policies through which employees engage in shift swap. This practice has positive impacts as it enhances employee retention and performance. Generally, shift swapping provides a framework for hourly workers to shift their working hours in order to response to pressing issues such as family responsibilities (Disselkamp, 2013). In addition to enhancing employee retention and performance, shift swapping also contributes to workplace flexibility. For this federal agency, shift swapping is a common practice for part- and full-time employees. However, some full-time employees have abused the policy, which has resulted in significant negative impacts such as the recent incident of a part-time employee who was injured at the workplace following shift swap. This report examines the timecard scandal and abuse of the agency’s shift swapping policy by workers, particularly full-time employees.

Problem Statement

The agency is facing a lawsuit from Matt Glynne, a part-time employee who was injured on the job after his claim for workman’s compensation was rejected. Glynne’s claim was denied because he was shift swapping when the injury occurred and therefore, not clocked in under his own name. Shift swapping is a common practice in the agency and occurs when an employee who is scheduled to work makes plans to have another person work on their shift. Shift swapping is carried out in exchange of an agreement to trade shifts or for compensation from the employee who was initially scheduled to work. While this practice is permitted because of its potential positive impacts on the working environment, it can become an issue because an employee is not clocking in under his own name and therefore, not compensated for hours they work. In addition, the employee’s benefits will not be calculated appropriately, which implies that the agency may be liable for infringement of the law.

Preliminary investigations into the issue has shown that the Unit supervisor was aware of the shift swap. Glynne had shift swapped with Jacob Walker who was initially scheduled to work on that shift. Since Glynne was not clocked in under his own name, he worked the shift under Walker’s timecard. These investigations have also shown that employees in the unit do not have a specific schedule as they are scheduled for 40 hours a week or 20 hours a week if full-time or part-time respectively. Based on the agency’s policies, employees are supposed to request time off prior to the preparation of the work schedule, which is carried out by the unit supervisor and posted two weeks in advance. Unit supervisors are not only aware of shift swap, but they also encourage it in order to avoid having gaps in their work crew. The investigations have revealed that full-time...

Full-time employees like shift swapping since they get benefits for work even if they pay another employee for shift swap. According to the Agency’s Chief Counsel Office and Unit supervisor Mike O’Neil, the agency should pay Glynne’s compensation claim because Unit supervisors had knowledge of the shift swapping.
Major Elements of the Scenario

The issue facing the agency reveals several components underlying shift swapping practices in the workplace. One of the major elements in the scenario is the current policy regarding shift swapping or assignments. Employees have seemingly taken advantage of existing policy on work shift assignments to engage in egregious abuse of shift swapping. According to Disselkamp (2013), when employees shift swap for pay, the advantages associated with the practice are...…address shift assignments and shift swapping.

Final Recommendations

In light of the issues facing the agency, there are some recommendations that would help prevent future reoccurrence of such a problem. One of the recommendations is the establishment of a new shift swapping policy. Under the new policy, full-time employees should only shift swap with their full-time counterparts whereas part-time employees shift swap with others in the same job category. This would prevent full-time employees from exploiting this policy/practice while protecting part-time employees from working full-time. Additionally, shift swapping should be restricted to documented emergencies and approved illnesses. Secondly, Unit supervisors should be required to exercise careful monitoring of timesheets and timecards of all employees. This would help prevent discrepancies and inaccuracies that in turn contribute to huge financial losses for the agency. Third, the agency should consider adopting electronic timekeeping system where employees clock in through biometric scanning or passcode as part of control of work schedules and shifts. Finally, employees and Unit supervisors who are found guilty of practices that have contributed to financial losses on the part of the agency should be subjected to disciplinary action in line with the agency’s policies and relevant labor laws.

In conclusion, the agency is facing a lawsuit from a part-time employee whose workman’s’ compensation claim after being injured when working was denied. The claim was denied on the premise that the employee was shift swapping when he got injured and not clocked in under his own name. Document analysis of the scenario shows that the current shift assignment and shift swapping policy has contributed to the issue. Some full-time employees have capitalized on gaps in the policy to obtain benefits for work they did not complete. As a result, the agency needs to adopt a new policy relating to work shift assignments and swapping.

References…