Chef accused of more than cooking
In August 2019, Grant began working for a restaurant. He had experience as a chef and in the restaurant business, and the new owner wanted his services.
The owner was somewhat absent from the business and Grant ran it. He designed the menus, hired the staff and was in charge on a day-to-day basis. Grant was paid $4,400 per month by e-transfer and never received a pay stub. In the summer of 2023, the owner terminated the relationship.
Grant filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour for unpaid termination pay under the Employment Standards Act, public holiday pay and vacation pay.
The owner claimed Grant was an independent contractor, providing consulting services and he was not entitled to any of these things as required by the act as that only applied to employees.
Grant, however, was well integrated into the business and, to any outside observer, looked like an executive chef working in a restaurant.
The owner thought because he never made deductions for Grant, it meant he was not an employee. If only it was that simple. The labour board easily found Grant was an employee since he was so involved in the business. Independent consultants do not usually run a restaurant on a day-to-day basis, including cooking in the kitchen and hiring staff.
This employer had another defence — although it would not affect the statutory holiday pay or vacation pay, he claimed Grant was not entitled to three weeks’ termination pay. Grant was guilty of wilful misconduct.
Business neighbours were telling the owner Grant was closing the restaurant whenever he wanted and taking time off as he saw fit. The owner alleged there had been thefts of product. Employees who worked at a nearby factory were told they had to pay the restaurant with cash. Grant would sometimes not accept Uber delivery orders. Drivers were complaining about Grant getting into fights with them.
The building manager said Grant got into fights with neighbours, customers and delivery drivers and had made an unwanted advance toward one of the waitresses. The building manager was full of opinions, including that Grant would often demand cash, cause customers to stop coming, use restaurant cash to buy his own car tires, sold drugs out of the restaurant and picked up a burger that dropped on the floor and put it back on the grill.
The junior cook said Grant was poisonous, had a victim complex and gave free meals to his friends.
The variety store owner from next door said Grant left the restaurant unattended and unlocked, bought cigarettes from her and then sold them out of the restaurant along with drugs and picked his nose when handling food.
It sure seemed like nobody liked Grant.
The problem for the owner was there was no evidence there had been any conversation with Grant about any of these allegations. Grant represented himself at the trial and the adjudicator thought the junior cook and building manager clearly had an axe to grind and hated Grant by the way they answered his questions under cross-examination.
Some of the allegations against Grant were very serious, and if the employer had taken the trouble to actually prove they were true, the lack of progressive discipline would not have mattered. Clearly if you are stealing money from the employer, you are guilty of wilful misconduct and get nothing. The absentee owner, however, had no real proof of anything. It was mostly just a bunch of hearsay.
Grant was awarded everything he asked for and ended up getting about $10,000. This owner may truly have been taken for a ride, but they jumped on that train themselves when they decided to run their business in such a slapdash way. You know somebody is a little confused from the start when they seem to think they can get around the Employment Standards Act and the tax man just by sending somebody an e-transfer instead of putting them on a proper payroll.
This article was originally published by The Hamilton Spectator.
