FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NEVILLE HOTELS LIMITED T/A ROYAL MARINE HOTEL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. An appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation no: r-141069-ir-13/DI.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was working in the laundry area of the Hotel until the work was outsourced to a private contractor. Rather than make the Claimant redundant she was move to the restaurant area. She has limited English and the physical side of the work is difficult. The Claimant is contending that the work is unsuitable for her and that she should be made redundant.
- The Employer said that it has suitable alternative work for the Claimant and provides full training for all roles.
This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 23rd March 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-- While I can fully appreciate the Claimant’s concerns and fears regarding a change in her role, I find, on balance, that the Claimant has been offered suitable alternative employment. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the Respondent has acted reasonably throughout this process and has demonstrated a willingness to accommodate the concerns of the Claimant where practical to do so. I therefore find against the claim that she be made redundant as a consequence of her role in the laundry being outsourced.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd June 2015.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant was employed in the laundry area from the 18th September 2007.
2. She has limited English which causes her difficulties while working in the restaurant.
3. The Claimant is contending that putting her into a role that is not suitable is not alternative employment and that she should be made redundant.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the outset the Company was committed to redeploying all team members affected by the laundry closing into alternative employment.
2. The Company is aware of the Claimant's needs and has provided full training for her in the restaurant with ongoing assistance.
3. The alternative job offers do not involve a loss of status or worsening of the terms and conditions of her employment and all alternative roles proposed are at the same level of the Claimant's former role in the laundry.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by an employee against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against her claim that she should have been made redundant by her employer. The Rights Commissioner found that she has been offered suitable alternative employment when the Hotel decided to outsource its Laundry Service. He held that the Employer had acted reasonably throughout the process and had demonstrated a willingness to accommodate the concerns of the Claimant.
The Claimant appealed the Recommendation and submitted that the alternative employment was not suitable due to her level of proficiency in the English language and due to the physical aspects of working in the restaurant.
The Claimant commenced employment in the Hotel on 18thSeptember 2007 working in the Hotel’s Laundry Service.
The Employer outlined for the Court the level of consultation engaged in with the Claimant following the announcement of the closure of the Laundry which commenced on 21stNovember 2013. It provided her with a number of alternative employment options including a newly created position as Porter to handle laundry deliveries to/from the contract Company, a position in Housekeeping, a position in the Food and Beverage area and a position in the Conference and Banqueting area. These positions were being offered on the same terms and conditions of employment as had previously applied when she worked in the Laundry. The Employer made it clear to the Claimant that she would be fully trained and supported in her new role and her progress would be monitored.
The Claimant opted for a position in the Food and Beverage area at breakfast time and commenced her induction training in that role on 28thFebruary 2014. She requested certain days off to facilitate her attending English classes which she was accommodated with. Later she requested a further change to the days she was rostered on and this was also accommodated. When she requested to change her hours from 20 hours per week to 30 hours, this request was granted.
Having considered the submissions made by both parties the Court concurs with the findings and conclusions of the Rights Commissioner and upholds his Recommendation that the Claimant was offered suitable alternative employment and was given every support in her new role to accommodate her needs and she is therefore not entitled to be made redundant. Accordingly, the Claimant’s appeal fails.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
10th June, 2015.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.