FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES: SEATANG LTD (REPRESENTED BY MILEY & MILEY LLP) AND A WORKER DIVISION:
Referral under S.20(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 9 October 2023 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 January 2024.
In June 2022 the general manager of the Employer reached out to the Worker to see if she would be interested in a role in a new restaurant that they were opening. After meeting with the owners, cooking for them, and drawing up sample menus, they offered her the position of Head Chef. She commenced work in August 2022. The Worker stated that she did not receive written terms and conditions of employment, but she assumed her role to be the running of all aspects of the kitchen from hiring staff, menu planning, ordering supplies, staff rosters and managing kitchen costs. The Worker submitted that she recruited a very talented team, and that the restaurant was well received. She informed the Court that they had received two positive reviews in the print media in October and December 2022 and had a successful health inspection in January 2023. At no time did anyone raise any issues with her around her performance.
In January 2023, she did a full menu revamp at the request of the owners and in February 2023, she became aware that there were concerns with the financial performance of the restaurant. She looked for information about the financial performance but did not receive same. However, in order to help the situation she increased her own and another salaried member of staffs working hours and decreased the hours of some hourly paid staff to save money. She also proposed a weekly/ monthly stocktake, but this was rejected by the Employer as being too time consuming. In March 2023, the Worker was informed by the general manager that a meeting would take place with the owners to discuss changes in the restaurant. At that meeting an entirely new plan for staff rosters and menus was presented by the owners. The Worker submitted that she was surprised that someone without experience of running a kitchen had drafted the rosters. The Worker was due to go on annual leave so it was agreed that they would talk further about those proposed changes when she returned. On her return she spoke to each of the owners individually about her concerns in respect of the planned changes in particular the rosters. At the start of April agreement was reached to implement new menus with effect from the 19th April. On the 18th April on a day off she dropped in to work, and met with the owners who advised that the restaurant was not doing well and that changes were required. They then informed her that they had decided to let her go but asked if she would stay on for the next three weeks. This came as a complete shock to her. Following her request to the employer for clarification around what had happened at the meeting, she received an email advising that she was being terminated due to two performance issues, failure to manage roster, and failure to produce satisfactory output. No further details were provided in respect of these alleged failures. The Worker submitted that this was the first time there was any mention of issues with her work and or work output. It is her submission that her employment was unfairly terminated and that no procedures were followed. The Employer submitted that the frequently discussed with the Worker over the period of her employment issues that were arising. They opted to do that informally in the hope that issues would be resolved. However, there were issues with food arriving at tables cold, and they received feedback from clients that pointed to issues in the kitchen. Issues also arose when they sought to make changes, and as reflected by the Worker in her submission, at one point, she decided not to implement planned menu changes. There were issues in respect of overstaffing on the rosters, and over time, it became clear to the Employer that this Worker was not a good fit for their organisation. The Employer accepted that the Worker had not been supplied with a written contract, and or terms and conditions of employment. The Employer also accepted that in coming to the decision to terminate her employment, they had not followed the procedures set out in S.I. No. 146 of 2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures or any procedures at all. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties both written and oral recommends that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of €5,368 being a sum equal to four weeks wages.
The Court so Recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary. |