Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Head Chef

A Restaurant

Representatives

Self

Self

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00028706-001

28/05/2019

The Complainant started his employment with the Respondent on 22nd January 2018. He claims that he did not receive his statutory minimum notice on termination of employment.

The Complainant submits that he emailed the Respondent his notice on Friday 19th April 2019 informing the Respondent that he would finish up on 11th May 2019, if suited the Respondent. He claims that had no difficulty to work longer if required.

He received no response until Wednesday 24th April 2019 when he was called to an unscheduled meeting with the Director of the Respondent and the Operations Manager. At the meeting the Director of the Respondent told him to finish up with an immediate effect. The Complainant submits that he did not think it was the right decision, but the Director told him to give back the keys etc. at the end of his shift.

The Complainant claims that he has sent numerous emails requesting to be paid for the notice period but the Respondent would not do so.

The Complainant refutes the Respondent’s assertion that there was conflict of interest or that he had approached staff members to move with him.

The Respondent submits that the Director of the Respondent received an email from the Complainant on Good Friday 19th April 2019. At the time she was dealing with a burglary in the restaurant and was not able to deal with the matter. She spoke with the Complainant on Wednesday 24th April 2019. She was disappointed and confused as the Complainant had plans to move to a more senior position within the Respondent company and his career progression was under negotiation. She was also disappointed with the short notice period as the Complainant was aware that the business was under serious pressure and that 18th May 2019 was an important, busy date for the restaurant. The Director wanted the Complainant to work out his four weeks’ notice as per his contract to cover 18th May 2019 but the Complainant “jumped” straight into the new place the following day.

The Respondent argues that there were two options, either work out the four weeks’ notice or leave immediately. The Complainant said that it made no difference to him. The Respondent claims that when the Complainant left the meeting, she understood that he was happy to leave immediately. While she was uncomfortable for the Complainant to remain in the restaurant due to conflict of interest, she could have moved him to another location to work out his notice if he wanted to stay.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant said that there was no conflict of interest. However, it transpired that he was opening a similar restaurant in the same city and some of the staff members told her he had approached them to move with him. The Complainant denied approaching the staff.

Evidence of the Operations Manager (OP)

OP said that Good Friday evening was not an ideal time to send the email but the Complainant was met with at the first opportunity. OP noted that the Complainant is an outstanding chef and the intention was to develop in his role.

OP said that the Complainant gave three weeks’ notice not four as per his contract. He noted the conflict of interest.

The Complainant referred his claim to the Director General of the WRC arguing that he did not receive his statutory minimum notice on the termination of his employment as required by the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. Both parties referred to a number of matters such as contractual provisions, non-payment of wages in respect of contractual obligations and conflict of interest. The complaint was referred to the WRC

under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, which only deals with the statutory entitlement to notice. Therefore, the contractual matters are not encompassed by the claim as referred to the WRC. Accordingly, my decision is confined to the complaint as submitted under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 and the matters related to the statutory entitlement to notice as provided for in the Act.

While the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 outlines in Section 4 the minimum notice an employer is required to give in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, the evidence before me shows that it was the Complainant who resigned his position. Accordingly, as the Complainant resigned his position, there is no obligation on the Respondent to give notice and the issue of minimum notice on termination of employment by the Respondent does not arise. For that reason, no breach of the Act occurred.

Having considered the evidence before me, I find that the complaint as submitted is not well founded.

Minimum notice- complainant resigned