ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021236
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {A Head Chef} | {A Gastro Bar} |
Representatives | Barnaba Dorda SIPTU |
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00027979-001 | 26/04/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/09/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Worker was employed with the Employer from 14th July 2017 as Head Chef. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Worker received a final written warning from her employer which was unwarranted or disproportionate. The employer did not follow fair procedures and the principles of natural justice. There were 9 complaints of food poisoning in the restaurant going back to October 2018. An external auditor conducted 3 reports, a pass was achieved overall. On 15th January the worker was called to an investigation meeting without notice of the allegations or representation. She was told she was responsible as Head Chef for the food poisoning allegations which the restaurant denied. She was told she scored poorly in the audit. Expired meat was found on 9th January 2019 and the worker was not present that day. The worker said she was not the only one responsible as there are a number of other chefs none of whom were disciplined. The allegations against the worker expanded to include breached of Haccp procedures, and serving out of date meat for the disciplinary hearing. The Worker received a final written warning and despite complaints about the process this was upheld. The worker is no longer working with the company and requests the final written warning is removed from her record. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stands over the action taken as there was an extremely high level of reports of food poisoning in 12 months, substantially more than their other restaurants. They did not take action immediately to allow the worker to take rectify the issues. The worker ordered the food generally. The worker was told she must improve after the second external audit report or there would be disciplinary action. The audit was getting worse after each inspection. The worker was aware of all the food poisoning allegations and these were brought to her attention. Management had no involvement in the audit reports which were conducted by an external company. The worker was responsible to discipline staff in the kitchen. She is responsible for the cleanliness of the kitchen and staff training. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have considered carefully the oral and written submissions of the parties. The employer has consented to the investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer. The disciplinary process conducted by the employer was not a perfect procedure, however, the food safety and hygiene issues were clearly outlined to the worker over a lengthy period . I do not recommend any change to the outcome of the disciplinary process. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I do not recommend any change to the outcome of the disciplinary process. |
Dated: 26th June 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Food safety, investigation, disciplinary, lack of fair procedures |