Sahara City says it should not have to re-hire staff member

Since 1 April 2018 Sahara City Co Ltd has operated the hotel under licence from La Trelade Hotel Ltd, which had previously run it.

Mark Chiverton had worked at La Trelade Hotel since 1 October 2013. He was reception manager at the time of his dismissal by Sahara City Co Ltd on 10 December 2018. Following a hearing in June 2019, the E&DT concluded that Mr Chiverton had been unfairly dismissed and he was awarded £10,273.78.

In November 2019, Sahara City appealed the decision in the Ordinary Division of the Royal Court. The then Deputy Bailiff Richard McMahon allowed the appeal but remitted the complaint back to the E&DT with guidance on the issue of continuous employment in terms of the 1998 Employment Protection (Guernsey) Law.

The E&DT considered the matter again and in August 2020 reconfirmed its decision that Mr Chiverton’s dismissal had been unfair.

Sahara City is now appealing the decision a second time. Daniel Elsadany from Sahara City contends that his business and that of La Trelade Hotel Ltd are separate entities and his company had not been obliged to re-employ Mr Chiverton under the terms of its licence. His company had only employed Mr Chiverton between 1 April and 10 December 2018 and therefore it had not employed him for at least 12 months, which would have given him the right to claim unfair dismissal.

Mr Elsadany said a statement from hotel owner Michael Doughty confirmed that he had no control over the operation of Sahara City Co Ltd and he was neither a director nor had any interest in it.

The statement also confirmed that the business had not been transferred. The licence clearly showed that Sahara was an occupier and tenant who was paying an annual rent. There was no activity linking the businesses at all.

Mr McMahon, as Bailiff, asked Mr Elsadany if he had read the part of the law which said that, if his belief was correct that businesses could be taken over or passed on, via operation of a licence, by sale, or by other financial arrangement from one employer to another without reference to employees, then it was open to any party to defeat the presumed rationale for this element of the legislation and deprive employees of continuity of employment at will.

Mr Elsadany said he had read it.

Mr Chiverton said the business had continued to trade as a hotel following the issue of a licence to Sahara City Co Ltd and all previously made bookings had been honoured.

Hotel users would not have realised there had been any change.

Mr McMahon said under the law he was bound to give the court’s decision in writing and he would do that at a later date.