EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Rosena Lynch UD301/2014
-Claimant
against
Monasterboice Inn Limited
-Respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. M. Levey B.L.
Members: Mr. N. Ormond
Mr. T. Brady
heard this claim at Dublin on 31st March 2015
Representation:
Claimant: Paul McGlynn, HR Consultants, Clonard house,
Market square, Navan, Co Meath
Respondent: Mr. Pat Collier, Collier Broderick, Management Consultants,
Unit 17 St Olaves Bus Centre, Malahide, Co Dublin
Background:
The Respondent is a public house. The Claimant was employed there as a waitress/ lounge girl. The Respondent contended that the Claimant could be moved as required between the kitchen and the customer floor area/ front line area.
The Respondent contended that the employment was uncontroversial up until March 2013. There were a number of complaints about the Claimant from March 2013 to August 2013. They initially dealt with them informally the moved to formal and issued a verbal warning. The verbal warning was not appealed. Eventually the Claimant was told to move from a front line role to a role in the kitchen, there was no loss of pay or hours to the Claimant because of the move. This was overturned by the Respondent and the Claimant was offered her front line role and her hours back. The Claimant declined to accept the offer and said that she wished to resign.
Claimant’s case:
The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant. She explained that there was an incident with an order from a customer who had ordered a drink. She explained the situation to the Tribunal. She reported it to the manager who told her to return and just charge a certain amount. She had wanted the manager to deal with the customer.
There was an incident in March 2013 regarding a food order. A customer complained that the food portion was too small. The customers were not happy. The manager did not deal with the incident.
There was another incident in August 2013 regarding a salad. Two regular customers arrived and asked her for the salad that they usually have. She asked them which salad that might be and they said to her that she knew which one. Eventually one told her which salad they wanted. The Claimant then outlined an incident regarding steaks. The Claimant explained to the Tribunal that it was said she had said that is what you ordered and that is what you are getting. Later on in evidence the Claimant clarified that she never said that to the customer.
At a later point in time she was told by RG one of the owners that she was being transferred from the floor to the kitchen. RG took her name off the rota for the floor and put her name down for the kitchen.
The Claimant explained to the Tribunal that the staff were talking about this and asking her why she had been moved. She spoke to RG who asked her why she would not work in the kitchen and that if she tried it she might like it. RG said to her that if she wished to leave that she would need to give her a letter of resignation.
The Claimant told the Tribunal that she never received a verbal warning or a written warning from the Respondent. She felt that RG wanted her to leave and placed her on kitchen rota to make her uncomfortable to force her to leave.
Respondent’s case:
The Tribunal heard evidence from RG. She explained that it was a family business and that it was “her watch” at the present time.
She moved the Claimant into the kitchen because of the customer complaints. They had to take the complaints very seriously; to protect the staff and to protect the customers. She never wanted to lose the Claimant. That Claimant was a very good worker. The witness further explained that she (she Claimant “seems to have a turn of phrase” and “she seems to have a turn of phrase to offend, I know she doesn’t mean to offend”
The employees do go from one department to another i.e. interchangeable between kitchen and front line.
Regarding the roster, and “public humiliation” the roster is put on a board for all to see, also the floor roster is placed on the fridge for all to see. She did change the roster and changed the Claimant from the floor to the kitchen.
The witness explained about the customers in that if they lost customers then they would have no employment. She also explained that she did feel that the Claimant should have another chance; she felt that the whole situation was blown out of proportion.
Determination:
The Tribunal having heard all of the evidence adduced unanimously determine that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed. The Claimant was offered her job back but she refused. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)