Recommendation
Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001320
Parties:
| Employee | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Chef | A Restaurant |
Disputes:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00001320 | 06/04/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00001321 | 06/04/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Date of Hearing: 02/10/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended), this dispute was assigned to me by the Director General. At a hearing on October 1st 2023, I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to put forward their positions in relation to the dispute.
Neither party was represented at the hearing. The employee was accompanied by a friend and the owner of the restaurant was accompanied by a chef. As the subject matter is a dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the hearing took place in private and the parties are not named but are referred to as “the employee” and “the employer.”
Background:
The employee is a chef and he started working in a restaurant owned by the employer in August 2015. In January 2016, he was promoted and was appointed as a head chef and, in November that year, he moved to another of the employer’s restaurants. Having worked for the employer for almost seven years, the employee handed in his notice on February 3rd 2022, and he left on February 13th. At the termination of his employment, his weekly rate of pay was €798.00. On Christmas eve 2021, the employee said that he got a phone call at 6.00am from the executive chef responsible for all the employer’s restaurants. The executive chef asked the employee to go to one of the restaurants to meet the chef there and he went to the premises at 7.00am. He found the female chef in a distressed state, saying she couldn’t handle the job anymore. She was about to phone the customers that had booked tables in the restaurant that day, but the employee said that he disagreed with her, because all the food preparation was done for the day and it would be wasted. The employee went to the restaurant where he worked himself and, half an hour before the service was due to begin, he said that he had “a big row” with the owner. He said that the owner wanted him to change the menu and he accused him of being over-staffed. The employer’s recollection is that the employee was shouting and that he went out into the lane at the side of the restaurant and he continued to be aggressive. The employer said that he ended up sending the employee home. Two days later, he wrote to the employee to confirm that he had been suspended. The employee returned to work in the restaurant on December 27th and he handed in his notice on February 3rd 2022. At the hearing, the employee said that the way he was treated on December 24th 2021 ruined Christmas for him and he could not celebrate with his family. He said that when he went to the restaurant first, they did 90 covers a day and by the time he finished up, they were doing 240 covers a day. For six months after the onset of Covid-19, he said that he did the work of a kitchen porter and a cleaner, on top of his own job. He said that he got no respect from the owner for all his hard work and he feels very unappreciated after seven years of working for this employer. The employee said that he has a bad temper and that everyone knows that. He said that there is a fine line between managing people and shouting and that this is how standards are maintained in a kitchen. He said that after Covid-19, the employer sent him chefs with no experience. He said one chef was sent to check on him. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
IR-SC-0001320 and IR-SC-0001321 The employee submitted two separate grievances about his suspension and his perception that he was bullied at work. It is apparent that, although he was sent home on December 24th 2021, he was not suspended. He was sent home because of an outburst of temper which the employer decided was unacceptable. There was no disciplinary investigation into his conduct and no disciplinary sanction resulted from what the employer described as “shouting and roaring” in the restaurant at 10.30am on Christmas eve. I accept that the employee was upset when he was sent home, but the employer’s decision does not meet the definition of bullying, which is conduct intended to undermine the dignity of another person. I have considered these matters, and, having heard from both sides at the hearing, it is my view that it was reasonable for the employee to move on from this employer to take up another job. His decision to resign marks the end of the relationship between him and this employer and I recommend that the employer takes no further action with regard to these grievances. |
Dated: 03rd November 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Breakdown in the relationship between an employee and an employer |