The Employment Relations Tribunal has ordered the Grand Pacific Hotel (GPH) to reimburse the wages for a year and five months to a former employee.

Inise Toganiyasawa was terminated in 2015 from her job as a public area attendant after a plate of pancakes which she was supposed to serve to the guests somehow slipped from her grip.

She had claimed that her termination under previous management was unfair and unjust.

She was transferred from the Housekeeping department to the Food and Beverages department as a food runner when the incident had occurred after which she alleged that her training manager screamed insults at her in front of the guests.

The complainant had then run to the washroom to cry.

The reimbursement to the employee will represent the employee’s wages lost as a result of the employment grievance under the Employment Relations Promulgation.

Ms Toganiyasawa had reported her employment grievance to the Mediation Unit days later after being terminated.

The Tribunal heard that following the ‘pancake incident’   other heads of the department had also submitted feedback that it was not the first time for such an incident to occur at the hands of the complainant.

The reports also outlined that the complainant was unable to adhere to her supervising manager’s instructions concluding that she was unfit for employment with the Hotel.

After the failure of the mediation session in resolving the claim for an employment grievance, the matter was referred to the Employment Relations Tribunal for a decision.

In her evidence, Ms Toganiyasawa told how the food on the plate slid and fell after which she was scolded by her supervisor.

She said the next day she was verbally suspended.

In the analysis, the chief tribunal Sainivalati Kuruduadua said the complainant’s employment contract was breached in two aspects- which were the allegations of gross misconduct against her and alleged swearing while the second aspect dealt with procedures and policies.

Ms Kuruduadua said the strange aspect of the complainant’s behaviour was the fact that she insisted that what she was doing was part of her job description but on that day she was ordered to carry out a task other than her duties.

That should have sent alarm signals to the management notwithstanding the fact that none of them have expertise in that type of behavioral attitude.

The tribunal further heard of the fact that the complainant had not fully recovered from the injuries she had sustained at the time in a Hotel bus accident. She was only home for three weeks and recalled to work without any medical clearance.

Edited by Mohammed Zulfikar

Feedback:  arishma.narayan@fijisun.com.fj