ADJ-00035485

Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Head Chef

A Restaurant

Representatives

Barry Crushell, Solicitor

Donogh McGowan, Solicitor

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

09/04/2021

The worker is a head chef and he was employed in a newly established pizza restaurant.  His contract of employment shows that his start date was February 17th 2021, although the parties accept that he did some work when the restaurant was being set up from the end of January.  This dispute concerns the termination of the chef’s employment on Sunday, March 21st 2021.  In his submission to the WRC, he claims that he was summarily dismissed in the absence of fair procedures. 

At the hearing, the chef said that on Saturday, March 20th, he was “sick and feeling tired” and he decided to go home because of issues with his health.  When he was at work that day, he sent the two directors of the company and a member of the kitchen staff a message on Whatsapp, saying that he needed to talk.  After an hour, he said that the director who attended the hearing of this dispute phoned him.  He said that he agreed that he would come to work the next day, and do the stock order for the week and then he would go home.  Later that evening, the director told him not to come in to do the order.  He went in around 12.00 midday, took his belongings and left.   

Setting out the employer’s side of this dispute, the director said that for a couple of days before Saturday, March 20th, he noticed a change in the head chef.  He said that he wasn’t in good form and that the ordering wasn’t up to his previous standard.  When he spoke to him about this, the director said that the chef told him to do the orders himself.  On Saturday, the director went to into the kitchen and he said that he asked how everyone was.  The head chef said that he wasn’t well and he walked out.  He told the director that he wouldn’t be in the next day.  The director said that he stayed in the kitchen to fill in for the chef.

A copy of the WhatsApp messages between the director and the chef from the date that the chef started working with the company was submitted in advance of the hearing.  The chef had left the restaurant during his shift on Saturday, March 20th and the WhatsApp messages show that at 20.29, he sent a message to the director asking, “All ok?”  There was no reply to this message and at 10.13 on Sunday, the director sent the chef a message saying, “Don’t come in today.  I’m going to do the orders myself.”  The chef replied that evening at 22.30, “Just make sure to my payment next week and my holiday (sic).”  On Monday, March 22nd, the director replied with a “thumbs up” sign.  The chef then asked for his payslip and the director replied, “tomorrow.” 

At the hearing, the director said that he paid the chef what he was owed and he heard no more until he got a letter from Mr Crushell.

In response to the evidence of the director, the chef said that they talked on Saturday and he asked the director if he would do his shift the next day.  He said that he wasn’t leaving but that he wasn’t sure if could come to work on Sunday.  He said that he had a certificate from his doctor.

The director said that he doesn’t remember the chef asking him to come in on Sunday, and that he got another chef to come in.  He said that he may have had a change of heart about leaving, but that he walked out the evening before.

For the chef, Mr Crushell said that it appears that there was a misunderstanding regarding his intentions.  He hadn’t been well and Saturday had been a busy day.  He had been to his doctor and he thought that there was cover for him.  He wanted to come back to work when he was better.  Mr Crushell said that, given the language difference between the director and the chef, the director should have made an effort to be clearer, instead of telling him to come in and collect his belongings.  He said that the chef feels that his professional reputation has been damaged.  He only got another job on August 11th, almost five months after he left.  He had a job in the meantime, but it didn’t work out.  When I asked him why, when there is such a shortage of chefs, he hadn’t worked since March, he said that some places were too far away from where he lives and that he wanted an job in an Italian restaurant.

From the evidence of the chef and his former employer at the hearing, and from a review of the communications between the two on WhatsApp, it is apparent that there was a degree of informality between this employee and his boss from the start of their relationship.  The director relied on the chef’s expertise in the setting up of the restaurant and in the selection of equipment and ingredients.  The chef was committed to the project, but it seems that by the time it was up and running, as he said himself, he was sick and tired.  He said that he had been to his doctor and got a medical cert, but he didn’t produce a cert in March 2021, and he didn’t produce it at the hearing of this dispute.

Based on the affable relationship between the director and the chef, it seems to me that, if the chef had been serious about not leaving, he simply would have phoned his boss and told him that he needed a few days off and that he would be back at work the following week.  The fact that this didn’t happen leads me to conclude that he didn’t intend to go back.  While he might have resigned in the heat of the moment, I believe that it was open to him to change his mind, but that he decided to stick to his decision.  I am satisfied therefore, that the chef decided to leave his job and that he did so of his own will.

I recommend that the employer takes no further action with regard to this dispute.

Dismissal in dispute