FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MONTROSE HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY SYMBIO HR SOLUTIONS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy Package, Revised Terms And Conditions
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a redundancy claim by the Union on behalf of its members following their lay off due to the closure of the Hotel. Following the purchase of the hotel by its current owners in 2006, the Company's intention was to develop the site on which the hotel stands to provide a mixed retail, office and residential development. All staff and the hotel were to be retained. In 2009 the Union raised concerns about the level of business in the hotel with the Company. The Company decided to close operations and allow time to try and establish a new basis upon which the hotel could reopen with a reasonable chance of success. Staff were put on lay off. A number of proposals were put forward for the hotel site. It is the Union's position that some of these proposals are viable. The Company's position is that there is no guarantee the hotel will re-open
This 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 30th June, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd October, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The workers concerned have given loyal and dedicated service for a long period of time. This commitment should be recognised.
2 The proposal to open low cost Bed and Breakfast only facility has the potential to succeed in this location and would see a return for the Company. The Union is seeking recognition and a share for its members who are the workers who built up the business that will eventually pay a dividend
3 The Union are seeking a redundancy package of 3.5 weeks per year of service, inclusive of statutory. This is far below other packages enjoyed by their former colleagues in other hotels.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company genuinely believes that the survival plan put to the Union earlier this year offered the best chance of re-opening the hotel. The persistent refusal of the Union's members has served to reduce the capacity of management to get the credit necessary to fund refurbishment and the redundancies on statutory terms. The Company is concerned that this opportunity is now in jeopardy.
2 There is no money in the Company to cover redundancy costs.
3 The Company fully recognises that this is a distressing time for everyone associated with the hotel. It did put forward a viable survival plan but it needed early acceptance to give it a realistic chance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the current financial circumstances of the Company are as described in its submission to the Court. However, this consideration must be balanced against the entitlement of the workers concerned to a reasonable redundancy settlement.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that statutory redundancy be paid but that the rebate due to the employer be paid to those made redundant by way of an additional ex-gratia payment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th November, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.