The Labour Court has ruled in favour of a chef who was dismissed by the Le Franschoek Hotel due to incapacity
Image: File Picture
A luxury Western Cape hotel lost its legal bid to have an order overturned in which it was found that the axing of its executive chef - who was instrumental in dousing a fire which broke out in the hotel kitchen - was substantially unfair.
During arbitration proceedings, the commissioner ordered Le Franschhoek Hotel to compensate its chef by paying him six months’ salary. The hotel group, however, turned to the Johannesburg Labour Court to have the ruling overturned.
Le Franschhoek forms part of the Dream Hotels and Resorts Group. The group owns some 21 hotels and 100 resorts located mainly in South Africa. It employed the chef (who is not identified) as an executive chef from January 2018. Apart from his culinary duties, he also oversaw health and safety at the hotel.
While he was off duty, he received a call from the kitchen staff informing him that a chip fryer had caught fire and that the kitchen was on fire.
The chef rushed to the scene and found the fire to be out of control. He took control of the situation. He and others formed a queue, each with fire extinguishers, him in front of the queue – dousing the fire.
When fire emergency services arrived, they congratulated him and the staff for the efforts they took to contain the fire, as the entire building could have burnt down.
Notwithstanding the incident, the chef still had to ensure that hotel guests were catered for before he went to hospital for a check-up as he inhaled smoke, which damaged his lungs. Things continued like normal for two months afterwards, as it was Le Franschhoek’s peak season.
During the third month after the incident, the chef started to feel the effects of what transpired, and he experienced panic attacks and anxiety. He was absent from work for a few days, thereafter intermittently over the following months.
The general manager referred him to counseling, and he was advised to receive treatment. The hotel gave him two months to attend treatment at a psychiatric hospital. The treatment, however, continued for a few months more before his occupational therapist recommended that he could return to work, with the support of the hotel.
The chef was happy to return, but he was instead requested to attend an incapacity hearing and subsequently dismissed on grounds of incapacity.
He turned to arbitration, where the commissioner noted Le Franschhoek’s concern that it was detrimental to its operations to continue without the essential services of the head chef, and that it was not easy to find a replacement for the position due to the nature of the work.
But the commissioner said, given the appropriate assistance, he could have returned to his previous level of performance. The commissioner found his dismissal procedurally fair but substantively unfair.
In the labour court, Acting Judge Bart Ford said the medical experts in their reports were consistent in the chef’s diagnosis and his prognosis for recovery. At the time when the incapacity hearing was conducted, it was evident that he was at that point ready to assume his position.
By that time, Le Franschhoek had not appointed anyone into his position, which meant the post was still available. The chef reported himself ready to assume the role, and the experts who treated him confirmed his readiness to do so.
Le Franschhoek’s failure to permit the chef to assume his position constituted a dismissal, Judge Ford confirmed in turning down the review application.
Related Topics: