A Wetherspoons manager was unfairly sacked for giving a colleague a 50% staff discount on an “excessively” large portion of food, a tribunal has ruled.
Peter Castagna-Davies was dismissed after letting a kitchen worker have 50 per cent off a meal of halloumi fries, chicken and Monster energy drinks.
The “diligent” manager, who had worked at the pub chain for more than 20 years with a clean record, was working as a bar shift leader at the Pontlottyn in Abertillery, Monmouthshire, when the incident happened, an employment tribunal heard.
On 31 January last year, he scanned through an “excessive” meal of two portions of each item, with a 50 per cent discount, for a colleague, the hearing was told.
The colleague took the food home to eat, which was in breach of company policy, the tribunal heard.
Staff had been told they may buy food at a 50 per cent discount only for themselves and to eat at the pub. If they wanted to take food home, they were allowed a discount of only 20 per cent.
Wetherspoons ruled that Mr Castagna-Davies had broken company policy and dismissed him for gross misconduct.
But now he is likely to receive compensation after the tribunal found his sacking was not reasonable thanks to his clean record.
Judge Rachel Harfield, at the employment tribunal in Cardiff, urged Wetherspoons and Mr Castagna-Davies to agree recompense between them, with the help of mediation service Acas.
Mr Castagna-Davies began working at Wetherspoons in July 2002.
Staff were entitled to one free meal and soft drink on their shift, with any further food or drink half-price and to be eaten at the pub.
In December 2023, the pub manager warned staff the rules would be more strictly enforced after workers across the UK had over-claimed.
The following month, Mr Castagna-Davies claimed two portions of halloumi fries, two portions of chicken breast bites and two cans of Monster drink with a 50 per cent discount for a colleague. He charged £14.50 for items worth £29.
The colleague, a kitchen associate, took the food home to eat, but the claimant said he did not know the colleague had left the premises with any food.
An information system called IntelliQ, designed to flag up potential fraud, loss or failure of procedural compliance, highlighted that the Pontlottyn had a higher-than-average number of cases.
After a company disciplinary hearing, he was dismissed in February 2024 for allowing his colleague to “purchase excessive products and by allowing him to take them home”.
Mr Castagna-Davies’s appeal against that decision failed.
But the employment tribunal found that thanks to his long service and clean disciplinary record, it was not reasonable to dismiss him.
The judge said he was guilty of negligence rather than gross incompetence.
“It was one incident on one shift that he could have managed better. He was an employee with long service and a clear disciplinary record,” her judgment concluded.
“The decision to uphold the dismissal at appeal stage was not within the reasonable range. In my judgement that rendered the whole dismissal unfair.”
