Unfair Dismissal Ruling: Chef Awarded €32,550 After Sacking Over Food Safety Allegations

Ireland: A Thai restaurant operator has been ordered to pay €32,550 in compensation to a long-serving chef after a ruling found that his dismissal over alleged food safety breaches was unfair.

The decision was delivered by Ireland’s Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) against Ecoco Asian Kitchen, which operates outlets in Cornelscourt, Dublin, and Bray, County Wicklow. The case concerned the dismissal of chef Tommy Chee King Eng, who had been employed by the company for over a decade.

Mr Eng was dismissed on June 25, 2025, following allegations that he breached food hygiene standards, including claims that he served food which had fallen on the floor and used an incorrect method in preparing roast duck. Additional concerns, based on CCTV footage, included not wearing appropriate headgear, touching his head while cooking, and using a mobile phone during food preparation.

The chef denied intentional wrongdoing and argued that he had been unfairly singled out, stating that similar practices were commonplace among staff without disciplinary consequences. He also raised concerns about the conduct of the disciplinary process, including the lack of a private setting for hearings, which were held in a customer seating area and a small storeroom.

In its defence, the company maintained that serious food safety concerns had arisen shortly after it assumed control of the business in June 2025. It argued that the dismissal followed due process and was proportionate for a small employer dealing with potential gross misconduct.

However, WRC adjudication officer Breiffni O’Neill found significant shortcomings in both the substance of the allegations and the procedures followed. He criticised the company’s “reactive, backward-looking approach,” noting that a reasonable employer would have clearly communicated revised standards, introduced updated hygiene protocols, and provided refresher training to a long-serving employee.

The adjudicator further observed that the allegations, even at their most serious, did not amount to gross misconduct warranting summary dismissal. Instead, they represented isolated lapses in food handling practices, none of which resulted in customer complaints, harm, or regulatory action.

Mr O’Neill also highlighted multiple procedural deficiencies, including the failure to properly investigate the chef’s explanations, the introduction of new allegations during the process without adequate consultation, and the absence of a fair and private disciplinary setting. He noted contradictions in the company’s instructions regarding colleague representation and criticised its refusal to accommodate a supporting colleague’s attendance.

Additionally, the WRC found fault with the lack of an effective appeals process and deemed it unreasonable that an appeal submitted by the chef’s daughter was not accepted, particularly given that English was not Mr Eng’s first language.

Concluding that the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable employer responses, the WRC ruled in favour of the complainant. The commission awarded €30,150 in compensation for unfair dismissal, along with an additional €2,400 for the employer’s failure to provide the statutory minimum notice period.

The ruling underscores the importance of fair procedure, proportionality, and clear communication in workplace disciplinary matters, particularly where long-serving employees are concerned.