A chef working at a Cork branch of restaurant chain Camile has been awarded more than €39,000 at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
The dispute arose when the employee was told he was being moved to Dublin weeks after attempting to claim three days’ statutory sick leave, the hearing was told.
Sujeer Thayyil had been employed since April 2019 by Santry Food Services, which is owned by Pramod Thankappan and Saritha Pramod and operates five Camile branches under franchise arrangements.
In October 2023 he sought three days’ statutory sick pay amounting to €308.70 for certified leave, a hearing at the WRC was told.
READ MORE
But the request was not acknowledged by management, who then told him he was being moved with immediate effect from Bishopstown, Cork, where he was normally based, to work in a Dublin branch, the WRC heard.
The hearing, overseen by WRC adjudication officer Breiffni O’Neill, was told he had not received any clear explanation of what had prompted the instruction to relocate.
Mr Thayyil, an Indian national, said he was not in a position to move as he could not find accommodation in Dublin for himself and his family without financial support from the company. It said it did not provide relocation expenses.
The company then said it would move him to the company’s Douglas branch in Cork, but when he reported for work there it became clear he had been demoted and would work as second chef rather than chef de partie with his pay reduced from €37,180 a year to €35,000.
He was also told he would be subject to a six-month probation period despite having already worked for the company for four years.
A stand-off developed between the two sides and on December 28th the company emailed Mr Thayyil asking that he confirm his willingness to work. He said he was ready to work, but did not accept the demotion and would do so under protest.
The hearing, at which the chef was represented by Sylwia Nowakowska of the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, heard his response was not acknowledged and on February 19th the complainant sent an email seeking to clarify whether he had been dismissed. This was also, he said, ignored.
The following month he lodged complaints alleging a list of employment law breaches including unfair dismissal, non-payment of Sunday premiums, non-payment for hours in excess of his contracted 39-hour working week, non-payment for public holidays and breaches of regulations related to breaks and days off.
The company, represented by Conor White, conceded breaches in relation to public holidays, annual leave and rest days.
But he argued Mr Thayyil had been responsible for ensuring he took his breaks and that he was paid all of the money owed in relation to some of the other claims, including the 10 per cent Sunday premium, which, it said, had been factored into his hourly pay.
Mr Thayyil said this was not possible as his hourly pay had initially been set at the minimum required to obtain a work permit and so could not include any premiums.
In his decision, the adjudicating officer found eight of the 10 complaints before the hearing to be well-founded though not the one taken under section eight of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.
“When the complainant notified the respondent of his intention to file a complaint with the WRC, the respondent replied the same day stating that the complainant’s contractual position remained available to him … which is inconsistent with any suggestion that the complainant had been dismissed,” Mr O’Neill said.
In relation to the eight complaints upheld, however, he ordered the payment of back money or compensation totalling €39,413.98 which included the €308.70 in sick pay.
