Avoca ordered to pay €40,000 to former head chef over unfair dismissal

THE AVOCA CHAIN of cafés and retail outlets has been ordered to pay €40,000 compensation to its former head chief who was fired for gross misconduct over inaccurate chilling records of food batches, despite a company report claiming there was “no food safety risk.”

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that Avoca Handweavers had unfairly dismissed head chef Giorgio Romano in August 2024, after 17 years in the job at its central bakery kitchen.

Romano had accepted that he had not taken the temperature of two batches of curry and that the records were inaccurate.

However, the 58-year-old chef claimed he had made an honest mistake at work under pressure over staffing, equipment and training, and he denied any intent to deceive or falsify records.

Romano told the WRC that he was dismissed following allegations of falsifying records, deliberate misrepresentation and disregard of safety procedures which he claimed was substantively and procedurally unfair.

An IBEC official representing the company maintained that the dismissal of Romano was justified.

In evidence, the former head chef said the sanction of summary dismissal was entirely disproportionate given it was an isolated error in an otherwise exemplary career with Avoca.

Romano claimed he had contributed significantly to the company’s food operations including the production of a cookbook and giving cooking demonstrations.

He described himself as a valued and integral member of the business with strong support from former senior management.

The WRC heard the complainant was recruited in Italy by Avoca’s former co-owner, Simon Pratt, in 2007 and was Avoca’s head chef when it was acquired by US catering giant Aramark in 2015.

He told the WRC that he faced a disciplinary process after Avoca received a query from the HSE in June 2024 concerning chilling records for two batches of food which he had signed off.

The WRC heard the recorded chilling time had exceeded the three-hour limit.

The chef claimed his employer had already prepared a non-conformance and corrective action report for the HSE before any disciplinary process had commenced, which made adverse findings against him without his knowledge.

The report also concluded that false information had been recorded.

However, Romano said it had recommended retraining rather than disciplinary action, while expressly stating that there had been “no food safety risk.”

The chef testified that he was never informed the allegations might amount to gross misconduct until he received a dismissal letter.

He also claimed his concerns about staff shortages and training and equipment issues were ignored.

The chef pointed out that another employee implicated in the report as sharing responsibility for the relevant tasks was not subject to any disciplinary action.

Counsel for Romano, Tiernan Lowey BL, claimed the process against his client was fundamentally flawed at every stage with the sanction bearing no relationship to the alleged wrongdoing.

Advertisement

Lowey claimed Avoca’s use of CCTV evidence was in breach of its own data protection obligations.

The WRC heard that Romano found another job after 6.5 weeks, but his annual salary had been reduced from the €83,000 per annum with Avoca to approximately €55,000.

Avoca’s representative, Aleksandra Tiilikainen, disputed the chef’s claim of insufficient training.

Tiilikainen claimed the chef’s managerial status meant he was expected to ensure compliance with food safety protocols.

She claimed proper procedures were followed throughout the disciplinary process, with Avoca arguing that the chef had flagrantly disregarded health and safety regulations which had endangered others.

Avoca’s general manager Mike Conway gave evidence that the chef’s error had led to a complete lack of confidence which had made it impossible for him to continue in the company’s employment.

The WRC heard that there was no recall of the affected products and they were sold without issue.

However, Conway stressed that preparing food is a high trust occupation and any error could be potentially damaging to the Avoca brand.

In his ruling, WRC adjudication officer Dónal Moore said it was clear that CCTV was used by Avoca for a purpose for which it was not intended, and it should not have formed part of the process.

Moore said it seemed that something requiring summary dismissal would require a recall of a product, but he noted products had not been recalled by Avoca, which would have been expected if there had been a real danger to consumers.

He said there was very limited questioning by the company to verify the mitigation offered by the chef.

Moore said the evidence of Romano of being overwhelmed and requesting further training was credible.

He said it should have been given more consideration at all stages given the chef was faced with new processes on “kettle” equipment which the WRC official regarded as a significant factor.

Moore said he was greatly swayed by the unchallenged evidence that the processes were found to be in need of adjustment.

He said it would seem there was merit in the mitigation claimed by the chef, given changes were necessary.

“It seems to me reasonable to conclude that the complainant faced a predetermined outcome or, at the very least, a process without the flexibility to adjust and deal with its own flaws,” he added.

He concluded that the sanction of dismissal was “harsh” and that a less onerous one should have been applied “in all the circumstances.”

However, Moore said the complainant was not blameless, noting that he had not reported his error.

He ruled out reinstatement or reengagement as an adequate remedy given Avoca claimed they would be inappropriate given there had been a breach of trust.

Moore ordered the company to pay its former head chef compensation of €40,000 which he said represented “just and equitable redress” and reflected the fact that Romano bore a significant degree of responsibility for his dismissal.

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More Support The Journal