RP294/2015

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

RP294/2015

APPEAL OF:                                                                                               

Zoltan Olah

– appellant                                                                                 

Against

Suvanne Management Limited

– respondent

under

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Mr C. Corcoran BL

Members:     Mr P. Pierce

                     Mr J. Jordan

heard this appeal at Dublin on 7th November 2016

Representation

Appellant:       In person

Respondent:    Mr Michael McGrath of IBEC, Confederation House, 84 – 86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-

The respondent’s business is a hotel.

Appellant’s Case

The appellant gave evidence. He started working in the hotel on 24 July 2008. At one time he was working 50 hours a week and he was happy with this.

On 7^th January 2015 he got notice that his hours would be reduced. His hours were reduced to sometimes 20 hours and even to as low as 10 hours a week. He could not live on 10 hours a week. He did not claim Social Welfare during the period when he worked reduced hours.

He was given a new contract of employment in early March 2015 that described his employment as part time. He refused to sign this contract as his earlier contract was for full time work. He spoke to the Deputy General Manager about his concerns and put his refusal of the new contract in writing. The Deputy General Manager replied that if the appellant was willing there might be extra work available for him in other departments. The appellant did not feel that it was possible to work 3 night shifts and 2 day shifts a week.

Later in March the appellant asked the Deputy General Manager to restore his full time hours. When his working hours were not restored to full time, despite his acceptance that there had been some improvement, he felt that he had no option but to give notice. He also asked for a redundancy payment.

Respondent’s Case

The Deputy General Manager, SG, gave evidence. He was hired to introduce new systems and put in place more effective systems.

On 7 January 2015 the General Manager wrote to the appellant to inform him that his working hours would be subject to a seasonal reduction. SG said that this was a regular occurrence in January when business reduced. The reduction in hours was implemented for all staff. In 2015 the reduced hours continued for longer than usual because a refurbishment program was underway. One floor at a time was closed for work and this reduced business operation. The refurbishment was due to finish in March but it took longer than planned to complete.

The appellant worked as a night porter. He started work at 11.00pm and served drinks to residents until the bar closed at 1.00am. From then until 3.00am he cleaned and set up the restaurant. He spent 3.00 – 5.00am cleaning the lobby and other open areas. Before finishing at 7.00am he set up the breakfast area.

SG knew that the appellant was unhappy with his reduced working hours and tried everything possible to increase his hours. He did not offer the claimant day shifts but offered him hours before and at the end of his night shift. He did not accept these offers of extra work.

When he took over SG had neither paper work nor personnel files. He spoke to everyone and said ok this is what you did but do this now. The appellant did not sign the part time contract he was offered.

As the year progressed the appellant’s hours of work increased. The week he left he was rostered for 30 hours and that would have risen to 40. SG was satisfied with the appellant’s work.

Determination

The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced in this case. The respondent’s is one with an element of seasonality, staff members are regularly put on short time during January. During the year in question the short time continues longer than usual due to refurbishment works on the building. The appellant was unhappy with the short time arrangements.

The Tribunal takes into account that the appellant’s original contract of employment makes provision for short time and the evidence of the Deputy General Manager that a redundancy situation did not exist at the time of the appellant’s departure. The respondent hired a replacement for the appellant.

In all the circumstances the Tribunal by a majority decision, Mr Jordan dissenting, finds that the appellant is not entitled to a redundancy payment. The appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 is dismissed.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)