FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JURYS DOYLE HOTEL GROUP LIMITED (JURY'S BALLSBRIDGE HOTEL) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Closure Terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the redundancy terms for approximately 450 workers resulting from the pending closure of Jury's Ballsbridge Hotel. The Hotel is one of two in the Jurys Doyle Hotel Group being sold, the Berkeley Court Hotel 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 €260 million and Berkeley Court sold for €119 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 was for 12 weeks' pay per year of service. 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 €260 million, will result in the loss of over 450 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. 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 €260 million received from the sale of the Hotel, would be very small.
5.Many of the employees working in Jury's Ballsbridge Hotel have spent all their working lives there. The employees will not only be losing their jobs but will also have to deal with the loss of other conditions such as future pension entitlements, VHI cover, mortality and serious illness cover. Most will find alternative employment when the hotel closes but other senior skilled people may find it difficult in what is a young people's market.
COMPANY'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______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.