FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DOYLE HOTEL GROUP (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Transfer of business.
BACKGROUND:
2. Since 1969, the Doyle Hotel Group has operated a laundry on the Naas Road in Bluebell, to service the needs of seven of its Dublin hotels, employing fourteen full-time and four part-time staff. Following a recent review of its operations, the Company decided that it was no longer appropriate for the laundry service to be provided from within the Group. Agreement was reached with the Connacht and Court Group, a specialist laundry company, for the sale of the Doyle Group laundry business, and the transfer of employees to Connacht and Court on their existing terms and conditions. The Union opposed the transfer on the grounds that the workers concerned would be located in Rathfarnham after the transfer, they would be using different and more complex machinery and the nature of their work would change, i.e., they would be dealing with the laundry requirements of a wide range of establishments such as hospitals rather than just hotels. The Union sought the option of redundancy, or re-deployment within the Doyle Group, along with disturbance payments for those affected. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission at which agreement was not reached. The Company indicated at conciliation that the employees involved in the claim would be retained at the existing premises on the Naas road. Apparently, the new owners, Connacht and Court would have no intention of moving anyone except by agreement. The Company added that the introduction of more up-to-date equipment was inevitable and would have arisen even if the employees were to remain as part of the Doyle Group. The Company did not accept the argument that the nature of the work would change as a result of the transfer.
The Company stated that the move to Connacht and Court constituted a straightforward transfer of the laundry business, and that they were obliged under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations to protect jobs as well as terms and conditions of employment. The Union contended that the proposed transfer was not a legal matter but an industrial relations difficulty - they argued that the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations did not apply.
Agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 8th of July, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 22nd of July, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have been an integral part of the Doyle Hotel Group since 1967, having opted as teenagers, to work for P.V. Doyle, and no other employer.
2. The servicing of the laundry needs of the Group's hotels is required and the incentive to the Connacht and Court Group is the lucrative linen contract.
3. The sale of the laundry is a device to induce the Connacht Group to accept the Doyle Group's obligations to its staff and was formulated without reference to the 18 staff, whose pay and conditions are related to hotel pay and conditions.
4. The workers concerned have a legitimate right to consideration in respect of their 'right' to determine who their employer is and, consequently, they should have options in respect of their future.
5. There will be major changes to the demands made of the 18 staff. They will be required to operate different machinery and to operate a general laundry, which is a completely different operation to Doyle's in that it will require servicing of much hospital laundry. The staff will even be required to have hepatitis injections.
6. An industrial relations solution must be found such as a voluntary redundancy package for those who do not wish to be pressed into employment with the Connacht and Court Group. Where there are positions available in the Hotel Group, workers who so wish should be given the option of being re-deployed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Having been in the laundry business for 25 years, the Doyle Hotel Group has decided that, in the future, it will not be specifically involved in this area as it is ancillary to the hotel trade, which is the Group's main function. For this reason, the Group has decided to transfer the business to one of the most reputable and long-established laundry companies in the country, which has been in business for over 70 years, and is satisfied that this company will fulfil its business requirements and fully meet its obligations to the staff.
2. Rate of pay and conditions of employment of the Doyle Group staff will be protected (details supplied to the Court).
3. The major issue that emerged in local discussions and at conciliation was that of the transfer of the laundry to Rathfarnham. As this issue has now been resolved with the retention and up-grading of the facility on the Naas Road, the union can have no reasonable argument in opposition to this transfer. Some temporary transfers to Rathfarnham may be required only while reconstruction and training are underway.
4. In selling the laundry business to Connacht and Court, the Doyle Group is satisfied that Company must, under the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1980, recognise the previous service and preserve the conditions of employment of the present group of staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all the information before it, the Court is satisfied that the Company has done all that is required to meet its legal requirement under the various pieces of legislation in effecting the transfer of its business to the new employer.
However, in view of the long service to the Group that has been given by many of the employees, the Court would recommend that the employees be given consideration for suitable employment opportunities which may arise within the Group.
The Court noted the commitment to examine the issue of costs incurred by employees, during the projected temporary transfer to Rathfarnham.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th July, 1996______________________
M.K./U.S.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.