Letters

Tread carefully to avoid TUPE troubles

Chris Woolley (Caterer, 29 June, page 18) appears to suggest, as part of the TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)) debate, an approach to the process of making a business acquisition in that "any staff that do not have two years' service… cannot be dismissed but can be made redundant, if they are unable to meet the needs of the redirected company".

Although not a lawyer,I advise caution with this interpretation.

First, the qualifying period after which employees have the right of complaint against an employer for unfair dismissal was reduced from two years to one year on 1 June 1999.

Second, although the right to a statutory payment is for more than two years' service, the point at which the transferee wishes to define the needs of the redirected company is a critical test.

Employee representatives have a right to be fully consulted about any measures envisaged in relation to the workforce and connected with the transfer prior to the event. Thus it would appear unsafe for the transferee to proceed on the assumption that a redundancy programme would be unconnected with the transfer if this was in fact the intended outcome. Restitution of £50,000 per employee provides an extreme disincentive for misconception of whether the redundancy was connected.

I suggest that the "minefield" and more onerous task for the transferee is the assignment of the psychological contract. In other words, the staff involved in a transfer have been recruited, trained and incentivised in one organisational culture until the Friday night. The following Monday they wear the T-shirt of the new employer, who probably has a completely different business ethos.

Those staff previously entered into an employment contract "voluntarily" with their employer and now are potentially unwilling participants in an involuntary process, overseen by a transferee ultimately wishing to achieve competitive advantage. This would appear to be an environment for conflict.

Peter Chaning-Cotter, Chairman, Eaton Fine Dining Limited, London E1.

25 years of a family working together

I enjoyed reading the article on Joseph Levin (Caterer, 22 June, page 28). It is interesting to read about a family business and the way they have managed to work together.

In June my family celebrated 25 years of working together at Farlam Hall Hotel. The staggering number of comments that this milestone produced has made us realise how few families do work together for any length of time.

Our 25 years have seen us transform Farlam Hall from having one AA star to a hotel holding three red AA stars and membership of Relais & Châteaux - not an easy task in an out-of-the-way place such as North Cumbria.

I would like to thank all the staff and friends who made this possible and wish continued success to all family businesses.

Helen Stevenson,Farlam Hall Country House Hotel, Cumbria.

The answer to no-show commission payments

Fred Hopkins (Caterer, 22 June, page 20) asks if it is right for agents to be paid commission on cancellations while "insisting" that they have no responsibility or duty regarding the payments due to hoteliers.

A good question, and one that is answered in the Hotel Booking Agents Association's charter, where it says "Commission is due on cancellation charges, but will only be paid on receipt of payment, unless otherwise subject to a separate contract."

In other words, Mr Hopkins, yes, you pay commission. But only when you get paid - unless of course you have "freely" agreed different terms and conditions. And furthermore, as responsible agents, HBAA members will make every effort to help ensure that you do get paid.

Peter Ducker, Hotel Liaison, Hotel Booking Agents Association, Sutton, Surrey.

If we want progress, we must accept the euro

Sir Rocco Forte argues the case for ignoring the euro (Caterer, 8 June, page 22) because, as he sees it, our economy is stable and steadily growing. Prosperity and greater disposable income are all around us - why change?

The fact is that nothing remains the same, and the rose garden he describes only 10 years ago cost most of us dearly.

The problem then was not that we entered the Exchange Rate Mechanism, but that we entered it at a rate which simply was not sustainable.

In retrospect, we appreciate the turmoil that existed in John Major's government. It is no wonder that what worked for continental Europe did not work for us.

To hold up both the previous and existing governments as spirits of virtue in economic terms is to miss the point - "boom and bust" versus "control freaks", both unable to reduce taxation.

I am glad Sir Rocco has not held up too many statistics to make his anti-euro point, as most are guesswork and can be interpreted in many ways. His only real point is that the changeover will cost money, and he is right - but so did decimalisation, and was that wrong? Of course not. It was progress, and we see much of that in our developing relationship with the EU. Why is it that my new car, ordered through the Netherlands, but built in and delivered from Solihull, is £12,000 cheaper than one from the dealer just up the road? Why did it take the Europeans to cause us to put plugs on electrical appliances?

Ford and BMW's pulling out of the UK may spell the beginning of a slowdown by outside countries investing here. Are we prepared to pay this price to remain isolated in currency terms?

Martin Cummings, Proprietor, Amberley Castle, West Sussex.