ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003065
Complaint for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00004075-001 | 26/04/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/12/2016
Parties: Complainant: A Breakfast Chef
Respondent: A Hospitality Services
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background
The Complainant has been employed with the Respondent from 22nd May 2006 until the employment was terminated with 4 weeks’ notice on 19TH March 2016. The Complainant was paid €448.00 gross per week and he worked 39 hours a week. The Complainant was provided with a written statement of his Terms and Conditions of Employment including the Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures of the Company. The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 26th April 2016 alleging he had been unfairly dismissed.
Summary of Respondent’s Position.
The Complainant commenced employment on 22nd May 2006 and his employment transferred to the Respondent following a Transfer of Undertaking on 13th February 2012.
The Complainant had been issued with a final written warning on 28th September 2015 following a thorough investigation and Disciplinary Process during which the Complainant was represented by SIPTU.
On 15th January 2016 a named employee who was Group Quality Assurance, Food Safety and Health and Safety Manager conducted an audit/inspection and found a number of discrepancies involving the Complainant which included – failure to abide by food safety temperature controls and an apparent falsification of food HACCP documentation contrary to food safety guidelines/practices.
The Complainant was informed by the Key Account Manager, named, on 21st January 2016 that he was conducting an investigation following the audit. The Complainant attended an investigation meeting with the Manager on 27th January 2016. He made admissions at this meeting in relation to the issues arising from the audit. The Manager issued his investigation report on 4th February 2016.
The Complainant was invited to attend a Disciplinary Hearing on 10th February 2016 conducted by another named Key Account Manager. The Complainant was afforded a right of representation by a Trade Union or a colleague. The Complainant opted to attend without representation. The Complainant was informed of the outcome by letter dated 18th February 2016. The decision was to dismiss the Complainant and he was paid 4 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.
The Complainant was afforded a right of appeal to the Group Head of HR. The Complainant submitted his appeal and the Appeal Hearing took place on 2nd March 2016. He was offered the right of representation but again declined. The outcome was to uphold the dismissal and the Complainant was informed of this on 10th March 2016.
Summary of Complainant’s Position.
The Complainant stated he had made an administrative error in relation to paperwork resulting in disciplinary action. The Complainant stated that he gave examples of common practice used by Managers. He stated that he worked from 5am to 1pm doing breakfasts. The Complainant stated that he had been trained and the Respondent produced Training Records to the Hearing. He stated that the audit lasted 20 minutes. He confirmed that he was afforded a right of representation but he declined and also declined his right to have a work colleague present.
The Complainant stated that he commenced employment on 22nd May 2016 where he is paid €12.00 an hour and he works between 40 and 45 hours a week. The Complainant was requested to provide evidence of this employment but did not do so. The Complainant stated that he had been in receipt of Jobseekers Benefit from March to May 2016. He was requested to provide evidence from the Department in relation to the dates he was in receipt of this Benefit but he did not do so.
Findings
On the basis of the evidence from both Parties I find as follows-
Food Safety is regulated by EC 852/2004 and by IS 340/2007.
The evidence was that the Complainant had infringed food safety standards and the Complainant did not deny this either during the investigation, disciplinary or appeals process.
The investigation, disciplinary and appeals process was conducted in accordance with the Disciplinary procedures of the Company and in line with S.I. 146/2000.
Decision.CA-00004075
In accordance with Section 8 (1C) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 I declare the complaint of unfair dismissal is not well founded.
Rosaleen Glackin
Adjudication Officer
Date:_______24 April 2017_______