Avoca obligată să plătească 40 000 de euro fostului bucătar șef pentru concedierea nejustificată

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