Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91369 Case Number: LCR13427 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: PHOENIX ARMS HOTEL - and - TWO WORKERS |
Claim by two workers that management failed to honour a commitment to re-instate them on the re-opening of the hotel in which they had worked following its renovation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written and supporting documentation, is seriously
disturbed at the manner in which the complainants in this case
were treated.
It is clear the owners of the Phoenix Hotel offered employment to
all of the staff in employment at the time of the take over of the
hotel and further created a clear understanding that
notwithstanding refurbishment there would likely be continuous
employment available. The Court in the course of the hearing took
the view that the Company reneged on the commitments it gave the
workers here concerned.
It is the view of the Court that the management of the hotel have
unfairly dealt with the workers here concerned. The Court
recommends that the Company should either give consideration to
the employment of the complainants or alternatively make a
payment of £500 to each of them in compensation for the loss of
their prospect of employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
7th October, 1991
A.S. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91369 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13427
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: PHOENIX ARMS HOTEL
AND
TWO WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by two workers that management failed to honour a
commitment to re-instate them on the re-opening of the hotel in
which they had worked following its renovation.
BACKGROUND:
2. Worker A commenced employment as a temporary kitchen porter
in 1985, and worked in that capacity until he was made full-time
in 1990. Worker B commenced employment as a housekeeper on 2nd
January, 1990. In September, 1990 the hotel premises was
purchased by Verit Industries. The Company, Bergenia Investments
Limited which employed the workers prior to the hotel takeover in
September, 1990 was in receivership. Verit Industries opened for
business on 26th September, 1990 and the two workers concerned
were given the same positions of employment. In January, 1991 the
hotel was closed for major renovation and refurbishment work.
When the hotel re-opened in March, 1991 the two workers concerned
were not re-employed. The workers claim that management failed to
honour a written and verbal commitment to re-instate their
employment following the completion of renovation work. Hotel
management reject the claim. The workers referred the matter to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place in Portlaoise on 28th
August, 1991. Prior to the hearing the workers agreed to be bound
by the recommendation of the Court.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the hotel closed in January, 1991 for renovations
management called a meeting of employees and informed them
that they would all be re-employed when the premises
reopened. The two workers concerned received personal
assurances from management regarding their future employment.
2. The workers were advised by a member of management that
it would be in their best interests to apply to the
Employment Appeals Tribunal for pay in lieu of notice. All
employees complied with this advice as they were unaware that
doing so would break their continuity of service.
3. The workers concerned have given satisfactory service
and at no time did their work, attendance or time keeping
record ever give cause for complaint. The loss of their jobs
has resulted in major financial problems for the workers.
They should be re-instated or paid two years salary by way of
compensation (Worker A had a gross weekly wage of £187.65 and
Worker B had a gross weekly wage of £108.80).
HOTEL MANAGEMENTS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to the purchase of the hotel building by Verit
Industries the workers had been employed by Bergenia
Investments Limited. That company was in receivership and
workers' employment was terminated by the receiver on 22nd
September, 1990. The workers received their statutory
entitlements from the receiver.
2. When Verit Industries opened the hotel to the public on
26th September, 1990 it offered employment to staff on the
basis that the hotel would close for major renovations in the
immediate future. In January, 1991 the hotel was closed and
workers were informed that all but a few essential staff were
being laid off and that each staff member would have to
re-apply for their position. All workers received their full
statutory entitlements up to 9th January, 1991.
3. Prior to re-opening the hotel in March, 1991 management
carried out interviews and appointed successful applicants to
suitable positions. Of the original staff of 35, 13 were
re-employed and an additional 28 new workers were taken on.
The two workers concerned were not re-employed as they did
not merit re-employment when their qualifications and
suitability were measured against new applicants. The two
workers were not given a commitment by management that they
would be automatically re-employed in March, 1991 following
the completion of renovation work.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written and supporting documentation, is seriously
disturbed at the manner in which the complainants in this case
were treated.
It is clear the owners of the Phoenix Hotel offered employment to
all of the staff in employment at the time of the take over of the
hotel and further created a clear understanding that
notwithstanding refurbishment there would likely be continuous
employment available. The Court in the course of the hearing took
the view that the Company reneged on the commitments it gave the
workers here concerned.
It is the view of the Court that the management of the hotel have
unfairly dealt with the workers here concerned. The Court
recommends that the Company should either give consideration to
the employment of the complainants or alternatively make a
payment of £500 to each of them in compensation for the loss of
their prospect of employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
7th October, 1991
A.S. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman