FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JURY'S DOYLE HOTEL GROUP LIMITED(THE BERKELEY COURT HOTEL) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the redundancy terms for 240 workers resulting from the pending closure of the Berkeley Court Hotel (the Hotel). The Hotel is one of two in the Jurys Doyle Hotel Group being sold, Jury's Ballsbridge being the other one. The Group, formerly a PLC, went private as a result of a change of ownership in January, 2006. The sale of the Hotel amounts to €119 million and Jury's Ballsbridge sold for €260 million. The Union advised the Company that it wished to negotiate separately for both groups of workers. Following discussions at local level and two Conciliation Conferences with the Labour Relations Commission the Union's claim, initially for 15 weeks' pay per year of service, was for 12.5 weeks' pay per year of service plus a loyalty payment. The Company's final offer was:-
5.5 weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of all statutory entitlements
or
6 weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of all statutory entitlements and subject to a salary cap of €700 per week.
The offer was rejected by the Union and the parties agreed to refer the case to the Labour Court on the 24th of July, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The sale of the Hotel, for which the Jury's Doyle Hotel Group received €119 million, resulted in the loss of 240 jobs.
2 The Company offered the same redundancy terms as applied in the restructuring of the Burlington Hotel (a sister hotel). However, that involved voluntary severance whereas the present case involves compulsory redundancy. As such, the Company's offer should be greater.
3. Many of the employees have worked at the Berkeley Court since it opened in 1978 and a large number have spent all their working lives there. The Company took a calculated business decision that the property was worth more being sold for development. The impact of that decision on the workers, who have made an enormous contribution to the success of the Hotel, and their families will be huge.
4. The cost of conceding the Union's claim, compared to the €119 million received from the sale of the Hotel, would be very small.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hotel was sold as it could not be maintained as a viable business into the future.
2. The Company believes that its offer was generous and that there are no grounds for the Union's rejection of it.
3. The Company made an alternative offer to staff members who wished to remain with the Company to take up the vacancies that arose in the Burlington Hotel. There were no applications for these positions.
4. The Company's final offer has significant cost implications for the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that in the overall circumstances of this case, and having particular regard to the service profile and the circumstances of the closure of the Hotel, the Company's offer should be improved to seven weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlementsorseven and a half weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements with a salary cap of €700 per week.
In addition, the Court notes that the Company’s offer provided for the provision of Out Placement services to employees being made redundant.
Both parties referred to a number of other outstanding matters concerning the forthcoming closure of the Hotel and expressed the view that these issues can be resolved at local level.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd October, 2006______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.