Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Waitress

A Restaurant

Representatives

William O'Reilly RVW O'Reilly Solicitors

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00065469-001

17/08/2024

The worker submitted a dispute under  Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act on the 17th of August 2024 in respect of her  dismissal on 22 July 2024.

The worker commenced working for the employer in March 2024 and her employment was terminated in July 2024.  She was employed as wait staff in the employer’s restaurant.  A hearing of this matter took place on 15th of November 2024.

Preliminary matter – incorrect employer named

At the adjudication hearing, it was brought to the Adjudication Officer’s attention that the Worker had incorrectly named the employer in her complaint referral form. While there is no dispute that the Worker was employed in the restaurant named in the claim form the employer representative Mr. O  advised the hearing that this was not the correct legal entity and clarified the correct legal name of the company.   The worker is a lay litigant and a foreign national.   The worker advised the hearing that she had named the restaurant as that was where she was employed but requested that the name of the employer be amended to reflect the correct legal entity as set out by Mr. O the employer representative at the hearing. 

I am satisfied that the employer was on notice of the dispute and of the hearing and that Mr. O  attended the hearing on behalf of the employer thus I am satisfied that the employer will suffer no prejudice if I amend the name as requested by the worker.   Accordingly, this recommendation reflects the correct name of the Employer.

The worker submits that

The worker commenced working for the employer in March 2024 and her employment was terminated in July 2024.  She was employed as wait staff in the employer’s restaurant.

The worker submits that she was dismissed on 22nd of July following two incidents with the owner of the restaurant Mr. D who was also the head chef.

The first incident she states happened on 26th of June when she had asked the Head Chef and owner Mr. D to ‘push’ a table as the customers had been left waiting 25 minutes for a complimentary dish after being informed ten minutes after they ordered that one of the dishes ordered was not available.

The worker submits that the owner took offence to this and told the worker that he no longer wished to work with her,  but he later agreed that she could remain until 18th of August when the restaurant was due to close for holidays

The second incident took place on 20th of July when the worker had to deal with  difficult customers who later left a negative review.    On the same night the worker was reprimanded by the owner’s wife Ms. D  for checking her phone while at work.   The worker was called to a meeting on 22nd of July where she was dismissed by the owner without any procedures being followed.

The employer submits that

The worker was dismissed due to her behaviour in the workplace submitting that she was confrontational with the owner in front of customers

The employer also submits that the workers behaviour was such that it culminated in a customer complaint following which she was dismissed.

The employer accepts that procedures were not followed in relation to the dismissal.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The worker submits that she was initially dismissed on 26th of June but was allowed to return to work and remain until 18th of August when the restaurant was due to close for holidays.  The worker stated that she was again dismissed on 22nd of July.

The worker outlined that the first incident happened on 26th of June when she had asked the Head Chef and owner Mr. D to ‘push’ a table as the customers in question had been left waiting 25 minutes for a complimentary dish after being informed ten minutes after they ordered their meal that one of the dishes ordered was not available.

The worker submits that the owner Mr. D took offence to this, to her asking him to ‘push the table’ and he  told the worker that he no longer wished to work with her,  but he later agreed that she could remain until 18th of August when the restaurant was due to close for holidays

The second incident took place on 20th of July when the worker had to deal with a difficult couple in the restaurant who when they arrived were dissatisfied with their assigned table.    The worker advised the hearing that she was aware that they were difficult customers as it was not their first time in the restaurant,  and so she had tried to please them by asking the host to check if they would prefer a different table.  The worker submits that the customers perceived this interaction as an argument between the worker and her colleague and the next day they left a negative review of the restaurant.  

 The worker advised the hearing that on the same night she was reprimanded by the owner’s wife Ms. D for checking her phone while at work.  The worker stated that she had explained that she was checking the phone for news about her Dad who was sick with cancer, but she stated that Ms. D did not accept this and made an insensitive comment.  Following the night of the 20th of July the worker was called to a meeting with the owner on 22nd of July where she was dismissed by the owner. 

 At this meeting Mr. D brought up the incidents of the 20th of July and also stated that the worker on 18th of July was overheard saying to a colleague that she couldn’t wait to leave the place.   The worker explained that she had said that she couldn’t wait to leave but would miss the team.  The worker was given a letter of dismissal which stated that the reasons for her dismissal were as follows:  Inappropriate an unprofessional behaviour, making comments in front of customers about leaving the position.   Unprofessional conduct towards the business owner.  Unprofessional behaviour on the floor leading to a negative customer review and arguments with team members.   The worker states that she contested these allegations and states that she was dismissed without any proper reason or procedures.

The employer accepts that it dismissed the worker without following any procedures.  The employer in its submissions claims that the decision to dismiss was substantively fair but accepts that it was procedurally unfair.  The employer submits that the reason for the dismissal related to the workers behaviour/conduct in the workplace.

I note that the workers employment with the employer terminated on 22 July 2024 and that she commenced a new job on 29th of July 2024.

It is clear that natural justice and fair procedures must be afforded to an employee when terminating  their employment.  I note that no procedures were followed in the instant case.  I also note that the employer had submitted that the dismissal was substantively fair citing conduct and behaviour as reasons for the workers dismissal.  The worker disputes the reasons given but cites that they were the reasons stated by the employer.  The employer himself did not attend the hearing to give a direct account of the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, but Mr. O attended on his behalf.   I note that the employer accepts that no procedures were followed.  I note that the workers employment with the employer only lasted 3-4 months when considering the two dismissals and I also note that she found another job a week later.  

Taking into account all of the circumstances of this case I find in favour of the worker and recommend that the employer pay to the worker compensation in the amount of €1,300 which should be paid within 42 days from the date of this recommendation.

I find in favour of the worker and taking into account all of the circumstances of this case I recommend that the employer pay to the worker compensation in the amount of €1,300 which should be paid within 42 days from the date of this recommendation.