FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GRIFFIN GROUP HOTELS (REPRESENTED BY MJ O'CONNOR SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Enhanced redundancy payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker commenced employment in Hotel Kilkenny in 1998 as a Sous Chef. He was subsequently promoted to Head Chef and held this position until the closure of the Hotel for major refurbishment in November 2005. Management decided that the fairest way to deal with staff would be to make everyone redundant. All workers received statutory redundancy of 2 weeks pay per year of service.
During the following weeks the Worker had several meetings with the Hotel Management and believed he had received assurances that he would be re-employed in the same position when the Hotel re-opened. Prior to the re-opening of the Hotel the Worker applied for his old job when it was advertised in the local newspaper. Following interview he was informed that he would not have his old job as Head Chef but was instead offered the position of Banqueting Chef at a reduced salary. The Worker left the Hotel feeling devastated.
The Worker sought to have his complaint heard by a Rights Commissioner but the Company objected to a Rights Commissioner's investigation.
The Worker is seeking an enhanced redundancy payment as the redundancy was not due to a downturn in business but to enable major renovations to take place. He had only received statutory redundancy. The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 17th July, 2006, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker is merely seeking a redundancy payment commensurate with other settlements in the industry of a similar nature.
2. The average redundancy settlement both nationally and locally would be well within the boundaries of the 4.5 weeks pay per year of service claimed by the Worker.
3. The Union maintain that the Employer ignored all good industrial relations practices. The employees had no say in what happened or no say in how to deal with the situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Staff were made redundant because the Hotel had to close for extensive rebuilding. All staff that were made redundant were treated in the same way.
2. There was no agreement with the Worker, any other staff or with the Union to pay redundancy in excess of the Statutory Redundancy.
3. The Worker received Statutory Redundancy the same as all other workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the claim for 4.5 weeks pay per year of service (inclusive of statutory redundancy) is reasonable and in line with settlements made in similar situations elsewhere within the industry.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
31st October, 2006______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.