FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JURYS DOYLE HOTELS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment relating to closure
BACKGROUND:
2. Jury's Hotel, Limerick, was sold by the Jury's group to a Company called Damesfield in February, 2004, and the new ownership took effect in April, 2004. It is now called the Limerick Strand Hotel. Employees transferred under the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations, 1980, and all terms and conditions of employment were preserved including the protection of employees pension entitlements. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for a loyalty bonus arising from the sale of the property.
- The Company rejects the claim.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th March, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the14th July, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. Some members have given loyal and dedicated service to the Company for over twenty years and are seeking recognition for the work and commitment given.
2. Members feel that having given most of their working lives to the hotel and turned down better job opportunities out of loyalty, that the Company are just walking away.
3. The Company made a considerable amount of money from the sale and a loyalty payment is sought for the members which will reflect the service, dedication and loyalty shown to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The staff in the Hotel were in receipt of guaranteed weekly service charge payments which could, dependant on business levels, lead to a surplus/deficit on the account from time to time. At Conciliation, the Company, as a gesture of good will committed to 'writing off' an estimated deficit on the 'service charge' account of €15,000. The benefit of this meant that the deficit would not have to be worked back. The offer was rejected and, therefore, in the Company's view, is deemed without status.
2.The hotel was sold at a lower price than that which could be obtained given the Company's desire to ensure continuity of employment opportunities for staff. It also ensured to protect defined benefit pension entitlements for staff going forward.
3. Payment of loyalty bonus is unwarranted given that the hotel accepted a lower sale price to protect employees jobs. In all previous disposal of Jury's 3 star hotels, no such claims were entertained by the Company when made by the Union. The Court, in Labour Court Recommendation No. 17566, has already accepted it is not normal or accepted practice to make such payments in the hotel's industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the Company write-off the deficit on the service charge account as of the date of transfer.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th July, 2004______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.