Bistro ordered to pay £30 to unsuccessful kitchen job candidate

Monday 11 March 2019

A local restaurant has been ordered to pay £30 to a kitchen porter for a three-hour trial shift during which she worked so hard that it made her arm "sore" - but failed to get the job.

Maria da Piedade de Sousa applied for a job in Ruby’s Lounge and Bistro, and was asked to come in for a trial shift. At the end of the 180-minute shift, she was not hired, with Ruby's stating that they were not busy enough.

The bistro declined to pay for the shift, arguing that it was not “normal” in the catering trade to pay prospective staff for a “trial”.

Aggrieved with the decision, Ms De Sousa therefore contacted the Employment Tribunal in December 2018 to seek payment for her three hours of service. A hearing was then held, which was not attended by Ruby's, who also didn't file any papers for it.

Pictured: Ms de Sousa worked three hours in Ruby's kitchen.

During the hearing, Ms de Sousa told the tribunal that she had responded to an advert from Ruby’s hoping to obtain kitchen work at the advertised rate of £10 per hour, or £8.50 if working full-time.

Having provided a CV, she was then invited to complete a three-hour shift. She said she really wanted the job and had worked so hard that "her arm was sore at the end of the shift", during which she cleaned equipment that was “covered in grease".

Ms de Sousa said she was never told she wouldn’t be paid for the trial, and that Ruby’s chef simply told her that they would let her know whether she had the job. 

When she didn’t hear from Ruby’s, Ms de Sousa went to the kitchen to find out what was happening. She told the Employment Tribunal that staff had been “unpleasant” to her and told her they were not hiring anyone because they were not busy enough. They refused to pay her for her work. 

Pictured: Advocate Claire Davies concluded that Ruby's ought to pay Ms de Sousa for her trial shift.

Ms de Sousa said she was “very upset and thought that this was very unfair”. She told the tribunal that she had done “trial” work in kitchens before and had always been paid.

In her judgment, the Tribunal’s Deputy Chairman, Advocate Claire Davies, noted that Ruby’s might disagree with some of the facts. However, she added that since they were not present at the hearing, she accepted Ms de Sousa’s evidence. 

“I find that work was advertised at £10 per hour, that the Claimant was asked to (and did) work for just under three hours and that the respondent never mentioned that this work would be unpaid,” she said, concluding that Ruby’s ought to pay Ms de Sousa £30.