Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Hospitality Employer

Representatives

Ormonde Solicitors

 Inhouse representation

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 - 00003542

11/12/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker was employed as a Head Chef.  He submitted that this matter is one of constructive unfair dismissal.  It was submitted that there was a fundamental transition in the workplace, including involving building works, there was a heavy workload and excessive working hours.  This was exacerbated when the other chef was let go. 

The worker raised concerns and although he was supposed to be working 48 hours weekly, he was often working 50 to 60 hours weekly.  He raised matters such as the impact on his family life and raised the level of working hours with the respondent but resigned after being certified on sick leave.

The worker was required to work excessive hours, far beyond his contractual obligations, and was forced to assume responsibilities outside his role, such as acting as a de facto construction project manager. It was submitted that these unilateral changes, combined with persistent understaffing, lack of managerial support, and a toxic workplace culture, objectively rendered the working environment intolerable.

The employer submitted that the worker was never dismissed.  It was submitted that whoever is in charge of the kitchen is in charge of running it and it was his responsibility to get staffing.  It was suggested that he was changed man when he came back from holidays.  His contract stated that he worked 48 hours per week and when he came back from his holidays, he sought a lump sum and was paid €2000.

It was noted that the worker set out the roster for the kitchen, in other words, he set out his own roster.  He handed in his notice on 7 October, and the other employees were gone within days. The kitchen closed down after this.

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

The employer did not challenge the fact that the worker worked excessive hours, simply noting that he set his own hours.  However, the worker did not set the kitchen opening hours, that was done by the employer.  The employer’s solution was to tell the worker to try to keep his hours below 48 per week.

From the discussion that arose at the hearing it became obvious that the kitchen was understaffed.  The employer noted that the worker was a great chef but was not necessarily a good manager.  However, the employer never challenged the lengthy hours worked by the worker.

The worker submitted that he obtained alternative employment eight weeks after he resigned from his position but did not provide evidence of the efforts that he made to secure alternative employment.  However, it appears that he was not available to work for all of the duration of the eight weeks.

I am satisfied that the worker was overworked to the point where he was left with no option but to resign.

Industrial Relations – unfair dismissal – excessive working hours – constructive dismissal – recommendation of award of compensation