Chef who had served food which had fallen on floor compensated for unfair dismissal

The chef said he felt targeted because other staff had engaged in similar practices without any disciplinary action being taken against them. File picture

A Thai restaurant has been ordered to pay €32,550 in compensation to a chef who was fired after he served food which had fallen on the floor to a customer.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that Ecoco Asian Kitchen which operates outlets in Dublin and Bray, Co Wicklow, had unfairly dismissed the chef, Tommy Chee King Eng.

The WRC heard the chef had worked for over 10 years with the company before he was dismissed on June 25, 2025, following allegations of food safety and hygiene breaches.

Mr Eng claimed he was sacked for having picked up food from the floor which he subsequently cooked and served to a customer as well as for using an incorrect method to prepare roast duck.

He told the WRC that he left a disciplinary hearing when he was accused of fresh allegations based on CCTV footage. They related to claims that he was touching his head while cooking and not using headwear as well as using a phone while preparing food.

The chef said he felt targeted because other staff had engaged in similar practices without any disciplinary action being taken against them.

A representative of Ecoco Asian Kitchen said serious hygiene and food safety concerns arose in June 2025 shortly after the company had taken over operating the restaurant.

It said it had suspended the chef because of potential gross misconduct and subsequently dismissed him based on his written submissions.

It claimed it had followed fair procedures proportionate to a small employer.

'Backward-looking approach'

However, WRC adjudication officer, Breiffni O’Neill, said the company’s “reactive, backward-looking approach” was at odds with what would ordinarily be expected of a new owner inheriting a long-serving employee accustomed to existing practices.

“In my view, a reasonable employer would have clearly communicated any revised standards, issued updated hygiene protocols, and offered refresher training with a reasonable period for adjustment,” said Mr O’Neill.

He said the chef’s explanations including that the dropped food had been re-fried before being served were not probed in a structured way and the company had not provided any written communication of revised expectations.

He claimed the allegations “at their height” fell far short of the type of serious and deliberate misconduct capable of justifying dismissal, “let alone summary dismissal”. 

The WRC said the issues concerned isolated lapses in food handling practice, none of which resulted in any customer complaint, harm or regulatory concern.

While Mr O’Neill acknowledged that food safety and hygiene were serious issues, he claimed warnings, retraining and closer supervision were typically used unless there was gross negligence, intentional wrongdoing or actual harm.

He added: “Any reasonable employer would have considered proportionate corrective steps rather than proceeding directly to termination.” Mr O’Neill said the procedures operated by the company had moved along “at remarkable speed.” 

The WRC also criticised the introduction of new allegations during the process and the failure to interview the chef about them.

He ruled that the decision to dismiss the complainant was unfair as it was not within the range of responses of a reasonable employer.

The WRC ordered the company to pay the chef €30,150 in compensation for the unfair dismissal and a further €2,400 for failing to provide him with a minimum statutory notice period.