"Skilled" chef was not forced to quit after job ad muddle, Tribunal rules

Friday 27 October 2023

A head chef, who claimed he had been effectively forced to resign after an advertisement appeared for a job he thought was his own, has had his compensation claim dismissed by a Tribunal.

Stephen Walker – who worked for more than three years at St Peter's Garden Centre – took Blue Diamond Limited to the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal alleging that they had constructively dismissed him in January this year.

The Tribunal heard that in autumn 2022 the company advertised for a new restaurant manager following the departure of the postholder but there was only one applicant who turned down the job to pursue a better-paid alternative elsewhere. Subsequently, they readvertised for a chef/manager, prompting Mr Walker to express alarm at what he regarded as the prospect of losing his job.

On 26 October last year he sent an email to the human resources department of the group responsible for the garden centre including the words: "You have a chef here which is me."

At a remote Teams meeting on 3 November 2022 between Mr Walker and the relevant group managers, it was explained to him that his job had never been under threat and that it was not his job that had been advertised. The company said that because the initial advertisement had failed to attract a manager, the post had been readvertised on a wider basis to try to attract further candidates with a catering background.

Pictured: The case was heard by the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal.

In his judgment, Tribunal Deputy Chair Advocate Cyril Whelan said he was satisfied this explanation was true.

"It would have made no sense, in the conditions described, for the company to have been trying to get rid of Mr Walker, a skilled chef and functioning member of a stretched Jersey team... I accept the evidence of the company’s witnesses on the point, including the evidence of the company’s recruitment agent and the written instruction sent by the company to that agent at the relevant time. The latter reflects exactly what I was told in the evidence given on behalf of the company, and I regard it as unanswerable," he said.

Advocate Whelan pointed out that it was substantiated by the fact that he continued to work for the company for a further two months before submitting his resignation.

Although the Deputy Chair described the allegations made against the company as "diffuse", he summarised Mr Walker's case as being a claim that it was his job that was being advertised and that, had a suitable applicant been found, he would have been let go.

"One difficulty about that is that the job being advertised differed in pay, title and terms of condition from that which was performed by Mr Walker," Advocate Whelan observed

He continued: "I have considered every legal element...set out in the context of the facts of this case...[and]... it suffices to say that I have found nothing in the conduct of the company which comes anywhere near a repudiatory breach; nor do I find this to have been a cumulative, ‘last straw case’ on the evidence presented to me.

"There is no doubt that Mr Walker was a skilled chef, and a valued member of the Jersey team, senior group figures successively gave evidence to that effect. Nor is there doubt that Mr Walker performed his duties in sometimes difficult conditions, particularly in the matter of staff shortages," he said.

"His commitment to the company even extended to performing front of house jobs such as table clearing when the need arose. But those are not the questions I am called upon to answer. For the reasons given, I cannot find that Mr Walker was constructively dismissed by the company and his claim is rejected accordingly."