Uncertainty over restaurant staff being taken over when Cirfood contract ends
The future of around sixty Cirfood employees at the UvA and HvA is uncertain. Now that Cirfood’s catering contract is coming to an end, the catering company and the educational institutions disagree on whether the staff should be taken over by the new catering businesses.
“Help us get clarity!” That is how a petition by Cirfood employees working at the UvA and the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (HvA) begins. The catering company's expiring contract is causing considerable uncertainty among restaurant staff.
To draw attention to their situation, Cirfood employees at UvA and HvA locations have launched a petition. That petition has already received more than 250 signatures within 24 hours.
Although Cirfood will remain involved in catering at UvA and HvA locations as the management partner, from January 1 onward the company will no longer be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the catering facilities. As a result, chefs and restaurant staff cannot continue working in their current roles. What happens to them next remains unclear.
Disagreement
A significant part of this is due to a disagreement between Cirfood and the UvA and HvA. According to Cirfood, this constitutes a “transfer of undertaking”. This is a provision under employment law that, under certain circumstances, requires employees to transfer when a company or part of it is transferred to another owner or operator. In that case, the new catering businesses – which will start on January 1 – would have to take over Cirfood’s employees.
According to the UvA/HvA, however, the transition to the new management model – in which catering will be divided among contracts with around 40 businesses – does not constitute a transfer of undertaking. In that case, the approximately 60 Cirfood employees currently working at UvA or HvA locations would remain employed by the catering company, which would have to find them another position – for example, at another location operated by the company. The institutions confirmed to higher education news site HvanA that, in their view, “ultimate responsibility” for the employees “lies with Cirfood as their employer”.
A UvA spokesperson tells Folia that the university is working with Cirfood “as a partner involved in the process”. “Opportunities may, for example, be available with the new coffee supplier, a local business or with Cirfood in its new role as management partner. These suppliers have been asked to advertise any vacancies to Cirfood employees, and they are happy to do so.” The institutions consider it “important that, wherever possible, there is clarity and that employees have a clear view of the possible next steps”.
“Not a single step forward”
“We haven’t made a single step forward since December,” concludes Martien de Haan. He has worked as a self-employed chef at the UvA and HvA for 23 years and is a member of the supervisory board of trade union De Horecabond. “We are talking about loyal restaurant employees, some of whom have been working under the UvA-HvA catering contract for as long as 40 years. They have repeatedly moved from one employer to another: from SMAA to Sorbon to Eurest to Cormet to Cirfood. These loyal employees now risk being discarded.”
The uncertainty is having a “major impact” on employees, De Haan says: “I’ll be turning 64 soon, so I’ll probably see it through. But there are also many people who are 50 or 55: they still have a long career ahead of them, but it would obviously be difficult for them to find work again.” It is precisely the uncertainty that is causing disappointment and anger among employees, he says.
According to De Haan, going to court has therefore not been ruled out: “We certainly don’t want to wait until the end of November. Not only Cirfood employees, but also the new local businesses are entitled to certainty. If it turns out that they have to take over the employees, their business plans will presumably be worthless as well.” The new businesses will initially receive one-year contracts. During the tendering process, they were explicitly told that there was no transfer of undertaking.
