Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Chef

Restaurant

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00004062

02/04/2025

On 2nd April 2025, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his employer dismissed him in breach of his right to fair procedures. By response, the Employer submitted that they engaged in the short disciplinary procedure in consideration of the Worker’s short service.

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the referral of this dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 28th November 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the disputes were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Worker submitted that he commenced his employment with the Employer on 4th November 2024, holding the position of Head Chef. Throughout his tenure, the Worker maintained that he acted as a conscientious and diligent employee, often working in excess of his scheduled hours to ensure the efficient operation of the kitchen. He asserted that he performed his duties to a high standard and was not subject to any disciplinary proceedings during his employment.

On 23rd March 2025, following the conclusion of his shift, the Worker received a telephone call from the Executive Head Chef of the Employer group. During this conversation, the Executive Head Chef questioned the Worker regarding social media posts that criticised the food served at the restaurant. The Worker stated that he possessed no knowledge of these posts, remained unaware of the nature of the criticism, and noted that no complaints were raised within the kitchen on that day. Subsequently, the Worker contacted the General Manager of the Employer group to address the matter. The Worker claimed that the General Manager spoke to him in a derogatory manner regarding his professional capability. The Worker vehemently denied these allegations, maintaining that he performed his duties to the best of his ability and argued that he could not be held responsible for anonymous social media activity.

During the same telephone conversation, the Worker was informed that his employment was terminated with immediate effect. The Worker denied the allegations subsequently raised by the Employer, reiterating that he consistently maintained kitchen standards and performed his duties diligently. He contended that his dismissal occurred without any adherence to fair procedure, relying upon an anonymous complaint that was never disclosed to him. The Worker further stated that the dismissal was affected via telephone, in the absence of a formal meeting, without the provision of representation, without notification of the substance of the allegations, and without any right of appeal. Consequently, the Worker submitted that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair and requested that a finding be made in his favour.

The Employer denied the allegations raised by the Worker. Whilst the Employer accepted that the Worker commenced employment on 4th November 2024 as a Head Chef, they maintained that his performance was unsatisfactory. The Employer submitted that, during a health inspection in February 2025, the kitchen demonstrated serious lapses in hygiene and cleaning standards. They further asserted that, on the date of the dismissal, the kitchen remained in a state of disarray, indicating that the Worker failed to address the issues identified in the previous report. Furthermore, the Employer stated that they received a customer complaint regarding the service of undercooked food on that same day.

Based on these incidents, the Employer concluded that the Worker was unable to perform his duties as a professional chef, and his employment was terminated with immediate effect. The Employer acknowledged that the decision was communicated via telephone, which they conceded was not their standard practice; however, they contended that the severity of the circumstances left the Executive Head Chef with no reasonable alternative. The Employer maintained that the Worker received all wages and statutory entitlements during his employment, including one week of pay in lieu of notice.

In summary, the Employer argued that the Worker demonstrated a lack of capability in his role and, considering his short length of service, they applied a truncated disciplinary policy which resulted in his dismissal. Consequently, the Employer submitted that no recommendation should be issued in favour of the Worker.

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

In the present case, the Worker asserted that he was summarily dismissed via a telephone call. The Worker submitted that he was neither permitted nor afforded any basic right of defence to the allegations raised during the call. In response, the Employer argued that serious issues occurred during the Worker's employment, and, given his short service, they were entitled to dismiss him using a truncated disciplinary policy.

Upon review of the positions held by both parties, it was apparent that the dismissal of the Worker took place without the adoption of any form of procedure by the Employer. Furthermore, it is apparent that the basic right to defence against the allegations raised was not afforded to the Worker in any meaningful fashion. In this regard, it is common case that the Worker was dismissed following the receipt of a customer complaint posted on the Employer’s social media account. In this regard, the fundamental principle regarding a worker's right to defend allegations was not respected, as the Worker remained unaware of the nature of the allegation prior to the telephone call in question. It is further apparent that he was not provided with an opportunity to query the nature of the allegation and ultimately received no realistic right of defence in relation to the matters raised.

It is well established that a worker, even one with short service, is entitled to the basic tenets of fair process prior to dismissal taking effect. In the present matter, it was common case that no procedure of any description was adopted, and the Worker was denied even the most basic of opportunities to defend himself against the allegation that led to his dismissal.

The majority of the hearing related to a factual dispute as to whether issues regarding the cleanliness of the kitchen actually occurred. Throughout the hearing, it was noted that the purpose of a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act is not to act as a substitute for an internal disciplinary policy. The correct and appropriate time for such a procedure was prior to the dismissal and during the course of the Worker's employment. Having regard to the aforementioned points, it was evident that the Employer engaged in no such process.

As a consequence of the accumulation of the foregoing points, I recommend in favour of the Worker regarding the present dispute.

Dismissal, Procedure, Short Service