Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Head Chef

A Hotel

Representatives

Malahide Mediation

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00026517-001

25/02/2019

The complainant submits s that he commenced employment with the respondent on 19th March 2018 and was dismissed form that employment on 1st of February 2019 without reason. The complainant states that he had never received any verbal or written warnings and that there were no issues with his work.

The complainant submits that he

Commenced employment as Head Chef with the respondent on 19th March 2018.   He had met the owner Mr. S after a couple of weeks in the job and Mr. S had been verbally abusive towards him.   He tried to lodge a complaint but was told there was no HR function. He submitted a complaint in writing to the Hotel Manager Mr. H.

The complainant was advised that he was doing very well in the job and there were no issues raised in respect of his performance.

On 1st of February 2019 he was dismissed without reason or procedures. He was given a cheque for €6,000 upon his departure but was not aware what this payment was for.

The respondent submits s that

The complainant commenced employment as Head Chef with the respondent on 19th March 2018.

On 1st of February 2019 he was dismissed during his probationary period with less than 12 months service. On 7th of February 2019 he was paid for all hours worked and for his accrued annual leave entitlements. without reason or procedures. He was also given a severance payment of €6,000.

The complainant did not have the required 12 months service to allow him to pursue a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1997 and has thus pursued his claim under the Industrial relations act.

The complainant advised the hearing that he was dismissed due to the fact that the respondent owner Mr. S did not like him. The complainant stated that there had been no issues raised in respect of his work and that he had in fact received much praise for his work.

The complainant told the hearing that he had commenced employment with the respondent on the 19th March 2018. He stated that within a couple of weeks of starting work and the first time he met Mr. S the owner, he was addressed and verbally abused by him in full public view and in front of Mr. D the general manager.     The complainant stated that he had walked away from this situation and was followed by Mr. D the General Manager who apologized to him.   The complainant stated that following this incident he spoke to hotel manager Mr. H to register a complaint through the company’s HR but was told that there was no HR structure in place, no designated HR officer through whom he could seek to resolve the issue.

The complainant put his complaint in writing and gave it to Mr. H.     The complainant stated that nothing was done about his complaint.  

The complainant advised the hearing that a consultant Michelin Star Chef was hired on a short-term bases on the 12th December 2018 to evaluate the running of the kitchen. The complainant told the hearing that Mr. A the Michelin star chef was very impressed with the Kitchen management and said he would be sending a positive report in this regard.  

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. D (GM) and Ms. C approached him on 1st of February after a busy Friday nights service and stated that they "needed to have a word with (him)", " as Mr. S wanted to let him go.       The complainant stated that he asked for an explanation as there were no complaints, and no warnings issued only positive feedback from customers, management & staff.

The complainant stated that he asked again " what I have done?" and was told by Mr. D " nothing” and added that he was the best chef the hotel had had. They replied that Mr, S wanted the complainant gone as he ‘didn’t like him’ and they handed him a cheque for €6,000 adding that they were all shocked.

The complainant acknowledged that he had received a cheque for €6000 but stated that the dismissal was particularly humiliating and embarrassing for him as he had to collect his belongings from the Kitchen immediately.   The complainant stated that no written or verbal warnings were ever issued, and he had received nothing but positive feedback.

The respondent submitted that the complainant was dismissed during his probationary period which according to the respondent Employee Handbook is 12 months. It was also submitted that the Handbook and Company Policy permits dismissal during the probationary period without adhering to procedures in relation to warnings and that normal rules and procedures do not apply during the probationary period. It is submitted that the complainant was aware of this Company Policy.   The respondent stated that the complainant received a copy of the handbook with his contract of employment. The respondent provided a copy of a contract which was not signed.   The complainant stated that he had not received a contract or terms of employment and had never signed a contract.

Witness for the respondent Mr. K at the hearing could not provide any explanation as to why the complaint was dismissed.   He stated that the complainant was dismissed as he “wasn’t suitable” Mr. K could not elaborate on the ways in which the complainant was “wasn’t suitable”. Mr. K added that he was not questioning the complainant’s ability and stated that he didn’t know the reason for the dismissal as he wasn’t there but that he knew there was no issue in respect of the complainant’s ability.

I am satisfied that the Complainant in this case was dismissed without warning, without investigation and/or representation and without knowledge as to the reasons or grounds for his dismissal.  

It is clear from the evidence adduced, that there were no procedures adopted by the respondent in terminating the complainant’s employment.    There is an obligation on employers before deciding to dismiss to follow fair procedures and natural justice in accordance with S.I. 146/2000 –Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000.

In relation to applying fair procedures, The Labour Court in the case of Beechside Company Ltd t/a Park Hotel Kenmare and A Worker LCR211798 stated: “The Court has consistently held the view that it is imperative that an employer in a dismissal case must not only show that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal but also that fair and proper procedures were followed before the dismissal takes place. This requirement of procedural fairness is rooted in the common law concept of natural justice.”

I am satisfied that the respondent has failed to show that there were any substantial grounds justifying the complainant’s dismissal and furthermore that the respondent did not comply with fair procedures.  For these reasons, I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.    Having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced and given the specific circumstances of this case I find in favour of the complainant and I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant compensation in the amount of €1,000.

I find in favour of the complainant and I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant €1,000 in compensation.