Serving up a disciplinary process without the main ingredient of fairness

It is so easy for us to go online and criticise a bad service provider - and one such review left a nasty taste with restaurant worker Caine.

A scathing online critique said to be about the waiter made claims about him being verbally abusive, his bad attitude, appearance and appalling customer service.

At a subsequent disciplinary hearing he faced allegations of being rude and abusive to a customer and of a loss of trust and confidence in him to perform his role.

The online reviewer claimed they complained about the poor quality of the food and the response left them shocked.

The writer said they visited the restaurant for a meal with their partner on a particular Saturday night. Cain was working that evening.

The write-up added the waiter, whose appearance was described in highly unflattering terms, in response was verbally abusive, swore and did not care.

The reviewer claimed they left without complaining because they genuinely feared being attacked by the volatile and aggressive waiter.

But Cain was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. It was with support from our representative, who slated the unfairness of the disciplinary case presented against him following the damning review.

However, rather than celebrating the outcome, Cain was dejected by how he had been treated by his employer.

He felt he could no longer work at the restaurant where he had been employed for three years.

Similar to any employee facing unfounded disciplinary allegations, the case and poor handling of it by management, caused  Cain considerable mental anguish.

With support from our representative he later managed to reach a settlement agreement he was happy with, leave the job and move on.

Worried Cain feared dismissal was an inevitable outcome when first informed he was to face disciplinary action in relation to the online review.

With the ability to slate a terrible dining out experience at our fingertips, it can create serious problems for staff implicated in the matter.

The case against Cain was presented at the disciplinary hearing.

The evidence consisted of a screenshot of the online review left by the disgruntled diner.

It led to Cain being suspended from work, him offering to resign, and his resignation being rejected.

When Cain was first asked about the review, he acknowledged the general description of the waiter’s appearance in the review fitted him.

So, pushed by management he accepted the review was likely to be about him. Although Cain was adamant he did not act in the manner alleged. 

He recalled a Saturday evening incident with an unhappy customer, which he made the chef aware of at the time.

Cain’s version of events, presented by our representative at the disciplinary hearing, was markedly different to that of the online reviewer.

The hearing was told that Cain recalled a couple complaining about their food after they had finished it.

They criticised the quality of the food and demanded a refund.

Our representative pointed out that Cain then justifiably questioned why they had finished the food if they disliked it as much as claimed.

Cain was described as being ‘firm, fair and polite’ and that it appeared to anger the couple who were in fact rude and abusive to him.

Our representative, who Cain first spoke to after contacting our Employee Support Centre, told the hearing the decision to take disciplinary action in response based on just the review was grossly unfair.

He told the hearing the review was unfairly accepted as fact, the disciplinary investigation was flawed and unfair despite dismissal being a potential outcome to the hearing and the matter had been poorly dealt with.

Our representative said the allegation of a loss of trust and confidence in Cain was unsubstantiated. It was because such a loss apparently comes from the allegations in the review, and any reasonable employer would find they are groundless. This was part of the robust presentation of Cain’s case.

Cain was cleared of the allegations the day after the disciplinary hearing.