The Gazette 1983

GAZETTE

JULY/AUGUST

198

works concerned in the contract. This was a new contract and not an uncompleted portion of an existing contract. The company in receivership was not a party to the contract between the Council and the respondents, nor did any consideration pass from the respondents to the company in receivership in respect of any matter other than the purchase of an earth moving machine from the receiver and the purchase of some other earth moving machines from the Finance Company, which hired the machines originally to the company in receiver- ship. The claimants claimed that they had continuity of service in respect of their employment with the company in receivership and the respondent company. The Tribunal held that the work the subject matter of the contract between Public Works Limited and the County Council did constitute a "business" as defined in Section 2 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. They held further that the company in receivership did not transfer any portion of its business to the respondent and that the respondent negotiated a separate contract with Cork County Council. The business of the company in receivership did not exist in relation to the contract work at Bantry when the respondent contracted to complete the outstanding work and there could not, therefore, be a transfer or change of ownership of a business or part of a business. The Tribunal held that the service of each of the claimants with the company in receivership could not be added to their service with the respondents and, as they did not,therefore, have the minimum service with the respondents necessary to qualify for a redundancy payment their claims were dismissed. Cases of this sort should be of help in interpreting the scope and applicability of the Acquired Rights Regulations, keeping in mind the added proviso that, under the Regulations, there must be a change in employer. Coughlan v. Keane It is believed the Regulations have only been raised once with the Employment Appeals Tribunal in this country, in the case of Coughlan v. Keane, T/A Keaneland Hotel, Case no. M373 UD256/1982. The claimant was employed as a receptionist at the respondent's hotel from 25th July, 1980 to 16th October 1981. The hotel closed on 7th October 1981 and the staff were paid up to 9th October 1981. The claimant maintained that she was informed on 7th October that the hotel was being sold. On 16th October she was sent home and, when she returned on 27th October, was informed by the hotel proprietor that the new owner would speak to her later about her job. On 3rd November 1981 the hotel re-opened. The new owner offered the claimant a job on 6th November 1981, but she refused the offer because the conditions of employment were radically different from what she had done previously. The claimant relied on the 1980 Regulations and maintained that she was unfairly dismissed. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal found/that the Regulations did not apply in the case, as there 'was a break-in service, the contract of employment ending when the hotel closed. The Tribunal held that there was a redundancy situation and, under the provisions of Section 6(4)(c) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, dismissal due to redundancy was deemed not to be unfair and the claimant's claim was dismissed.lt should be noted that the claimant was not legally represented and it would appear that the Regulations were not opened to the

Tribunal in full. The Tribunal appears to have accepted that the transferor of the hotel terminated the claimant's employment. It would appear in that event that the transferor must justify such termination on the grounds of economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the work force, as required by regulation 5 of the Regulations. This does not appear to have been done in this case. U.K. Industrial Tribunal Cases A number of decisions have been given by Industrial Tribunals in the U.K. touching on the regulations. In Bachelor v. Premier Motors (Romford) Ltd. and Petropolis Limited, COIT 1359/181, the claimant was the manager of a petrol station. On 5th April 1982 his employers, the first named respondents, entered into an agreement for the sale of the petrol station to the second named respondents. Completion of the sale took place on 1 st June 1982 and this included the sale of the premises, fixtures and fittings and other minor pieces of equipment and stock. During the first month of occupation there was some disruption while M. & M. carried out various building operations and waited for the transfer of a British Leyland franchise. The Tribunal considered the following facts as relevant: (a) after the sale Mr. Smith did not intend to set up a business elsewhere and it was unlikely that Mr. Smith would ever compete with M. &M., particularly as he had given up the B.L. franchise; (b) apart from used cars, all assets were transformed; (c) some of the employees were kept on after the transfer by M. & M.; (d) although no goodwill had been transferred, this was because it had no monetary value and so was not included in the agreement. Theno-floor-space postroom from PitneyBowes.

it y o u r c o m p a n y, like m o st s m a ll c o m p a n i e s, is

s h o rt o f space, t h e n y o u r post is a l m o st c e r t a i n ly s u f f e r i ng t he m o s t.

W n i c h is w h y t he Pitney B o w e s M i n i M a il Centre-

c o u l d get y o u o u t o f a jam.

As y o u c a n sec, it's a neat, c o m p a ct u n it that h a n gs c >n y o u r w a l l w i t h c o m p a r t m e n ts f or s o r t i ng y o u r mail. A n d at its heart is a Pitney B o w e s postage m e t er a n d e l e c t r o n ic 5()()g scale. T o g e t h er t h ey c an r e v o l u t i o n i se t he w a y y o u r c o m p a n y h a n d l es its m a i l, jmil n For t h e p r o f e s s i o n al W f l P l t n G V D 0 W 6 S t o u c h, k e ep in t o u c h w i t h iMnltHi.nri.. in — vtona MOavf hi manna niivim. P i t n ey B o w e s. ^ I' iiiicx IV i\v rx pi, I 'jrkmnn liuluslrul KxUU I. ihih Mill- Kc Mil. Dublin I J III Dublin IIIJJSJ

132