Case Number: ADJ-00017644. Workplace Relations Commission.

• Docket Number: ADJ-00017644
• Hearing Date: 24 January 2019
• Date: 01 February 2019
• Year: 2019
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Waiter v A Restaurant

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Response to Respondent’s preliminary Application. The complainant commenced working for the respondent in October 2016. He denies that he left his employment in 2017. The only time he took off in 2017 was two weeks in May, when he was doing his college exams. The complainants p60 for 2017 shows that he worked for 51 weeks. Furthermore, there is a letter from the respondent dated the 22 May, 2017 indicating that the complainant worked from 2016 as a part time staff and from 21 May, 2017 as full time staff, 40 hours per week at €10.50 per hour. The complainant’s submissions. On the evening of 6th of October a friend of the complainants was in the restaurant. He knew him from secondary school. The complainant’s friend did ask him if there was any pork in the aromatic duck dish. For religious reasons his friend is precluded from eating pork. The complainant did not know, so he asked several other staff members if they knew but unfortunately none of them could shed any light on the issue. The following day the complainant was asked to attend at a meeting. He was given no notice whatsoever what the meeting was about. He was asked to explain what happened with the gentleman the evening before. He explained that he knew this man from secondary school and that he had asked was there any pork in the aromatic duck dish. The complainant explained that he had asked several staff members but unfortunately nobody knew the answer. He did say to his friend “sorry mate, I don't know, I'm not the chef'. The floor manager then handed him his letter of dismissal. The letter did not state that the complainant had a right to appeal. The complainant denied that he had appealed the decision to dismiss him in February. The only letter he received in February was the one dated 8th of February notifying him of a formal written warning. Until he made a freedom of information request, he had never seen the letter dated the 7th of February, dismissing him. He did not know he had a right to appeal the October decision to dismiss him. He went to the citizens information and they told him that he should appeal the matter to the WRC. He was not paid his minimum notice payment. The complainant did sign a contract in October, 2017. He was not given a copy of the contract. The document he was given was blank generic contract. The complainant secured a new job in November 2018. He is earning €10 per hour and works an average of 30 hours per week.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Preliminary application The complainant started working at the respondent restaurant in October 2016. His father was the manager of the restaurant. Shortly after that, his father became a director of the respondent company. The complainant left for several months in May 2017 and didn't return until October 2017. He was given a new contract with employment which has a start date 9th October 2017. The complainant was dismissed from his employment on the 7th of October 2018. He does not have the required service under the unfair dismissals act to bring this claim. Respondents submissions. The respondent had to reprimand the complainant on a daily basis for mistakes that he was making in the restaurant. On 7th February 2018 he was dismissed from his employment. He appealed that decision and by letter dated the 8th of February his dismissal...