A Chef v A Hotel. ADJ-00035734. Workplace Relations Commission

• Judgment Date: 25 November 2022
• Year: 2022
• Docket Number: ADJ-00035734
• Hearing Date: 15 June 2022
• Date: 25 November 2022
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Respondent: A Hotel

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened on the 15th June 2022. The Respondent provided a submission in advance of the hearing. Both parties expanded upon their respective positions during the course of the hearing.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a Chef de Partie with the Respondent from 2013 until his dismissal on the 21st October 2021. The Complainant contended that he was unfairly dismissed and so he submitted a case against his former employer under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The Respondent contended that the Complainant was dismissed from his employment for gross misconduct following a thorough process undertaken by the Respondent which ensured maximum fairness and transparency and was conducted in accordance with fair procedures and natural justice.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Preliminary Issue: At commencement of the hearing the Respondent requested that this matter be held in private. The Respondent submitted that the incident which gave rise to this dismissal was of such seriousness within the industry that it would have a significant negative impact on their business. The Respondent stated that the business was just starting to pick up again following Covid 19 restrictions and that if the information relating to the case was in the public domain it could set back progress. The respondent also stated that in circumstances where the Respondent had not contributed in any way to the situation which gave rise to the dismissal, they were requesting that the matter be held in private. The Case The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was appointed to the role of Chef de Partie with the Respondent in 2013 and was provided with a contract of employment on the 8th July 2013. The Respondent submitted that the following sequence of events took place. · On the 1st October 2021 a colleague of the Complainant reported an incident to the supervisor. Employee X had witnessed the Complainant urinating into a drain in the dairy fridge room of the hotel. · Later that day, the Human Resources Manager called Employee X to discuss the incident he had witnessed. Employee X explained the incident and confirmed that he had witnessed the Complainant urinating in the dairy fridge room. · Employee X explained that he had questioned the Complainant when he realised what was happening and that in response the Complainant proceeded to inform him that he was not to tell anyone about what he saw and if he did not, he would give him money. · Employee X informed the HR Manager that he thought this was not the first time the Complainant had urinated in the dairy fridge room as he had smelled urine there in the past. · Later, on the 1st October, an emergency meeting was called with the Complainant, the HR Manager and the Assistant Operations Manager. The Complainant was asked at the beginning of the meeting if he would like to be accompanied by a colleague of his choice but he refused. · The HR Manager and the Assistant Operations Manager began to discuss the incident with the Complainant. At this point he denied urinating in the dairy fridge room. He was also asked why he was in the dairy fridge room in the first place and he responded that he was getting cheese which he needed to cook an Irish stew. · When the Respondent questioned this, the Complainant then said that he wanted to eat the cheese, however there was none in the fridge. When the Respondent asked one final time about what had occurred in the dairy fridge room, the Complainant stated that he was diabetic and could not make the toilet in time and so had urinated in the dairy fridge room. · The Complainant was also informed at this meeting that he was to be suspended with pay pending full investigation. · After the meeting on the 1st October, the Complainant called his supervisor to inform him that he had been suspended and wanted the staff food to be taken out of the blast chiller for food preparation. · When the supervisor questioned why he had been suspended, the Complainant vaguely said that he thought his colleague had informed HR that the Complainant did something. When the supervisor questioned if he had done something wrong, the Complainant denied any involvement. · On the 4th October 2021 the Complainant was issued with a Terms of Reference document by the Respondent to inform him of the investigation process and the principles covering the process. · Again, on the 4th October 2021 the Complainant was invited to attend an investigation meeting. This was scheduled for 4pm on the 5th October 2021. · On the 5th October 2021 the investigation occurred with the HR Manager, the Operations Manager and the Complainant in attendance. The HR Manager questioned why the complained proceeded to deny the allegations to the supervisor after the emergency meeting on the 1st October. The Complainant confirmed he did not want to share the details with the supervisor. The investigation proceeded to explain that the Complainants’ behaviour was regarded as gross misconduct and a health and safety risk. · During this meeting the Complainant stated that Employee X had demanded money from him in exchange for his silence on the matter. · On the 5th October the Respondent examined the video footage in relation to the incident of the 1st October as a result of the comment made that Employee X had demanded that he give him €900. · The video footage showed the Complainant following Employee X up and down the corridor in the Respondents’ premises, for somewhere between seven and eight minutes. On the video footage at 10:48am the Complainant was seen with his wallet and bank card in his hand and is seen showing it to employee X. · At 10:50 on the video footage the complaint entered the kitchen. At 11:56 the Complainant was seen in contact with Employee X again. The Complainant followed Employee X around the loading bay. At 11:57 the Complainant re-entered the building unaccompanied by Employee X. · On the 6th October 2021 the Complainant was invited to a disciplinary meeting which was due to take place on the 8th October 2021. · On the 7th October 2021 the Respondent met with Employee X to discuss the complaint. The HR Manager informed Employee X that the Complainant claimed that after the incident Employee X asked the Complainant for €900 to stay quiet about the incident. · Employee X was shocked to hear this and said he had not, at any point, asked the Complainant for money. · Employee X said he told the Complainant to go to HR or his manager and to tell them what had occurred. Employee X added that after he had witnessed the incident he spoke to another member of staff in confidence before...