The WRC found a security guard’s penalisation and unpaid wages complaints were not well founded in a decision dated 18 August 2017. The guard worked for an agency that moved him between client sites. After the client asked for him to be removed from the Dolphin’s Barn site, the agency offered him work at another site. The WRC found the agency had little control over the client’s decision and had arranged the alternative job and roster within two days. The guard refused the new roster because it differed from his usual three-shift pattern. The WRC found that pattern was not guaranteed and that he had made himself unavailable for work by rejecting the offered shifts. It also accepted that he had raised a legitimate safety concern about the lack of a warm, secure hut, but found the agency had not penalised him for doing so. An identical complaint, ADJ-00007825, was withdrawn by agreement before this case proceeded.