How a client's meal cost a chef his job

A Mombasa court has awarded a chef Sh440,512 for summarily dismissal over a meal.

Justice Ocharo Kebira upheld Principal Magistrate David Ndungi’s decision to award Pride Inn Hotel Investment Senior Chef Nickson Mangwenje the compensation of eight months’ salary, one month’s salary in lieu of notice, and public holiday dues,

Justice Kebira held that the summarily dismissal of the chef by Pride Inn was procedurally unfair.

“In the upshot, I conclude that the learned trial Magistrate did not err in finding that the summary dismissal of Mangwenje was unfair and in awarding compensation for public holidays worked but not paid for. Consequently, I find the appeal to be without merit. It is hereby dismissed with costs,” ruled Justice Kebira.

On September 26 2020, Mangwenje prepared a meal for a client without a ticket, and that cost him his job.

Mangwenje was summarily dismissed for serving a meal without a Kitchen Ticket Order (KOT).

He was employed by Pride Inn Hotel as a Senior Chef from 2015 until September 26 2020, when he was summarily dismissed on allegations of gross misconduct arising from a client’s order.

Mangwenje narrated that he simply prepared a meal for a regular client and instructed a colleague to serve it.

He told court that although the cost of the meal was deducted from his salary, he was still dismissed which he felt was a double punishment.

Mangwenje said that he could not have declined the client’s request, as this would have amounted to neglect of duty.

He argued that the summary dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair, as he was subjected to a disciplinary hearing without sufficient notice or time to prepare.

The chef further told court that he was not given a fair hearing, and was condemned unheard contrary to sections 41, 43, and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.

Mangwenje said that he was not given an opportunity to appeal, the allegations against him that were unfounded and unclear.

He argued that he diligently performed his duties throughout his employment and that the Appellant’s actions were unlawful, unjust, and in breach of labour laws, including the failure to pay his terminal dues despite attempts at out-of-court resolution.

However, Pride Inn Human Resource Manager Nicholas Ochieng accused the chef of alleged gross misconduct by breaching the hotel’s standard operating procedure on September 20 2020.

Ochieng said the chef was promptly issued with a notice to show cause and invited to a disciplinary hearing.

He told court that the chef was provided with sufficient time to prepare and the opportunity to be accompanied by a witness of his choice.

Ochieng further claimed that the disciplinary hearing took place on September 23, 2020, during which Mangwenje admitted to breaching the procedures, pleaded for leniency, but failed to justify his conduct.

The HR said that after the hearing, the hotel decided to dismiss the chef promptly, and was paid all his entitlements.

In awarding Mangwenje, the trial court ruled that although Pride Inn had a valid reason to discipline the chef for serving food without a KOT, it failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under section 41 of the Employment Act.

Consequently, the court found that the termination was procedurally unfair and therefore unlawful, despite the existence of a substantive reason.

Justice Kebira ordered Pride Inn to issue a certificate of service and to cover the costs of the case.

Aggrieved, the hotel appealed and sought to overturn the said award.

In the appeal, Pride Inn said that the trial court’s findings on unfair dismissal and the awards granted were erroneous.

The hotel said that the trial court failed to consider that Mangwenje had previously engaged in similar misconduct and had been pardoned.

However, in opposing the appeal, the chef maintained that he was not served with a show cause letter prior to the disciplinary hearing and was not issued with a notice to attend the hearing.

Mangwenje said that he was only verbally summoned without being given sufficient time to prepare his defense.