Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Receptionist

An Accommodation Service

Representatives

Aleksandra Tiilikainen Ibec

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00029753-001

17/07/2019

The Complainant worked as a Receptionist from 27th March 2014 until 14th June 2019 with the Respondent.

The Complainant has been constructively dismissed. The office where she was employed for over five years closed down. The Respondent offered her different positions at one of their hotels at different locations. The Complainant did not feel comfortable working in the hotels and asked for her redundancy which the company refused.

The role of Receptionist in the hotels had different job duties and required greater travel which would involve additional cost. The Complainant raised this with her employer but they continued to refuse payment of redundancy and said the job was the same.

The Respondent has been incorrectly named in the complaint form, and consents to change its name to it’s correct title. has a number of hotels and other accommodation. The Complainant was initially employed as Housekeeper and was promoted to Receptionist on 13th June 2016. She trained as a Receptionist in a hotel of the group.

The Complainant worked across a number of properties including apartments and hotels. On 30th March 2017 the Complainant began to work in an Apartment complex, but at the same time she provided cover in other hotels and apartments. Due to centralisation of reservations and customer self check-in it was necessary to place a number of roles at the Apartment complex where the Complainant was working at risk of redundancy.

The Complainant attended an at risk meeting on 13th May and consultation meetings on 24th and 30th May 2019. She was informed that other receptionist roles are available in the hotels. She did not indicate which hotel she would like to work in. She was offered two receptionist roles in hotels with the same job specification in her current role, and the same terms and conditions. The role would be easier as all guests are in the one hotel. The Complainant refused to accept this and said she did not wish to work in hotels. The Respondent addressed all the issues raised and informed the Complainant she could apply for a Senior Receptionist position. The Respondent asked the Complainant to reconsider her refusal. She did not turn up for work on 19th June 2019. The Complainant sought her redundancy and resigned by email on 21st June 2019.

The Respondent says the Complainant was offered two suitable alternative roles identified during the redundancy process. The Complainant refused to transfer to the roles and resigned from her position.

The Respondent says the Complainant is not entitled to a redundancy payment within the meaning of S6 (3) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

I have heard and considered the written and oral submissions of the parties.

On the application of the parties pursuant to S39 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, the name of the Respondent on the complaint form was altered to its correct name with the consent of the Respondent.

S15 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967

(1)    An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if

(a) his employer has offered to renew that employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment,

(b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would not differ from the corresponding provisions of the contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract,

(c ) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect on or before the date of the termination of his contract, and

(d) he has unreasonably refused the offer.

(2)    An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if

(a)    his employer has made to him in writing an offer to renew the employee’s contact of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment,

(b)    the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would differ wholly or in part from the corresponding provisions of his contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract,

(c)     the offer constitute an offer of suitable employment in relation to employee,

(d)    the renewal or re-engagement would take effect not later than four weeks after the date of the termination of his contract, and

(e)    he has unreasonably refused the offer.

(2A) Where an employee who has been offered suitable employment has carried out, for a period of not more than four weeks, the duties of that employment refuses the offer, the temporary acceptance of that employment shall not solely constitute an unreasonable refusal for the purposes of this section.

The Complainant commenced as a house-keeper with the Respondent in one of the hotels, and was promoted to the position of Receptionist on 13th June 2016. She has worked as a Receptionist in apartment accommodation thereafter. The contract of employment produced by the Respondent containing the right to assign and re-locate the employee to other locations reasonably has not been signed by the Complainant.

In line with the UK decision in Cambridge & District Co-operative v Ruse [1993] IRLR 156, I will consider the suitability of the offer of alternative employment which is an objective test and whether or not the Complainant’s decision to refuse this is reasonable in all the circumstances, which is to be considered from the Complainant’s viewpoint.

The Respondent offered a position of Senior Receptionist to the Complainant which is on the same terms and conditions save as to location.

The Complainant is dissatisfied with the working conditions offered as a Receptionist in the hotel which differ to her position as Receptionist in an office and says the role is not the same. She has concerns about her personal security with difficult guests, noise complaints and handling intoxicated guests late at night alone. Security guards are not present at the hotel and are on call. She had to report an incident when working there previously. She could not take breaks or eat anything during her shift.

The Respondent disputes the evidence given by the Complainant and said they never received any grievance from the Complainant. On the late night shift there is a lone worker button to press if help needed. The security team are on call in based in the area of the hotel. On other shifts there are other staff present, housekeepers and the General Manager.

The Complainant disputes that she had to walk to apartments alone at night, and says there was a check-in agent present to do this. She was office based.

The Complainant says the distance to the new place of work offered is greater 40-45 minutes by foot and will cost 100 euro extra for transport.

In considering all the circumstances, I am of the view that the offer of alternative employment made is suitable. However, given the nature of the changes to the role of Receptionist for the Complainant I am of the view her decision to refuse the role is reasonable.

The complaint is well founded and I direct payment of redundancy to the Complainant by the Respondent for the period of her employment from 27th March 2014 to 14th June 2019 on the basis of her weekly pay of €442.55 gross.

The complaint is well founded and I direct payment of redundancy to the Complainant by the Respondent for the period of her employment from 27th March 2014 to 14th June 2019 on the basis of her weekly pay of €442.55 gross.

Re-location and mobility, suitable alternative employment, refusal offer of re-employment reasonable