ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057792
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Pizza Chef | A restaurant |
Representatives | Complainant | Restaurant Owner |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00069657-001 | 28/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints
Background:
The complainant is employed as a Pizza Chef with the respondent restaurant. He is alleging discriminatory dismissal, following harassment at work. Evidence was given under oath/affirmation at the hearing by the complainant and the owner of the restaurant and the Head Chef in the restaurant. All evidence was subject to cross examination. Any submissions received were considered by me in reaching my decision. Having heard the evidence presented I have concluded that I should anonymise the parties. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant has worked as a Pizza Chef with the respondent for 5 years. He alleges that he has been subject to frequent harassment at work in particular by the female members of staff. In addition, he has not been allowed eat in the restaurant embarrassing him in front of customers. He suffered an injury outside of work and is concerned that his employer may have been involved. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant has worked for the respondent for several years. The respondent has no issue with his work. Every 2 or 3 months he comes with an allegation the details of which the respondent has found hard to pin down. CCTV has been used repeatedly but failed to identify any supporting evidence of his complaints. Staff in the kitchens were also interviewed. The company put in place a system where the complainant was told to bring any complaint he had to the Head Chef at the time of the occurrence. All of the staff are allowed to take food. The company had no part in any injury sustained by the complainant outside of work. The complainant has never been dismissed by the respondent. His payslips support this.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant is alleging discriminatory dismissal. He provided no date on which this dismissal took effect. His claim with the WRC was lodged on 28th February 2025 and therefore if any such dismissal occurred it would have to be before that date. However, the respondent provided evidence of payslips evidencing his continued employment. In evidence the complainant confirmed that he was still working for the respondent. Therefore the complainant’s employment was ongoing at the time of his complaint for discriminatory dismissal. The complainant did not specify in his complaint or in his evidence what protected grounds under the Act applied to him and which grounds were linked to his complaint of harassment. While giving evidence it is clear that the complainant felt that he was under suspicion and being harassed by the respondent, in particular by female members of staff. However, he provided no specifics to support these allegations. For his part, the respondent gave evidence of multiple investigations that had taken place regarding allegations made by the complainant, including checking CCTV coverage of alleged incidents, interviewing kitchen staff, none of which supported the complainant’s concerns. In light of the above I find that the complainant has not made a prima facie case of discrimination and he was not discriminated against. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
The complainant was not discriminated against. |
Dated: 02-12-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Key Words:
Discrimination, harassment, |