Payment for Chinese buffet staff who ‘close after first shift’ after lockdown


The owner of a Chinese buffet has been ordered to pay thousands of dollars to two former employees who only worked one shift.

Shawn Carr and Sinatta Ramsay were both hired to work at the Chinese Buffet when the Darlington venue reopened last July after the lockdown. However, when the venue suddenly closed on the day of reopening, an employment tribunal heard the pair were then left in the dark about their roles.

Now they have both won four-figure payouts from boss Peter Wu after an employment judge ruled they had ‘encountered unauthorized wage deduction’ during what was described as a ‘ unfortunate situation” for all parties. After undergoing a “short period of training”, the pair showed up at the Feethams site for the first lunch shift on July 5, but things quickly turned sour.

Read more:

“During this midday shift, engineers from the gas authority arrived and carried out inspections and the result was that they determined that there was an irregularity with the electricity meter and they notified the owner “, reads a report from the duo’s labor court.

“It was conveyed to the staff, that the power was going to be cut off but was pushed back at the time all the customers had left and so it happened around 3:00 p.m. There was no certainty as to when the situation would be regularized and the restaurant did not open for the evening shift that day and indeed, as we have now noted, did not reopen.”

The January court heard that over time both plaintiffs were concerned about the lack of work and pay. Having ‘received calls’ about the financial hardship the sudden closure had imposed on Mr Carr’s family, Mr Wu paid him £600 out of his own pocket while other staff received statutory payments.

“This demonstrated some awareness on Mr. Wu’s part of the existence of a scheme under which employees can receive compensation if they are in fact terminated,” the court report added.

Yet despite WhatsApp messages between staff and management, there was no clarity until Miss Ramsay and Mr Carr received redundancy notices by email in September. They then took these claims to court claiming in Mr Carr’s case £4,355.66 for unpaid wages and in Miss Ramsay’s case £3,009.96.

“The case put forward by the two claimants is that they were not formally dismissed and that they were not specifically informed, or written, in any form, indicating to them that they were legally licensed,” reads the summary.

They argued that they “remained employed” and “were always ready and willing to work” and therefore should have received the wages due to them in their contracts. Both argued that Mr Wu’s £600 payment was intended to ‘ensure some loyalty’ and was not, in fact, redundancy pay.

However, Mr Wu argued that it was “clear to all” that they had been made redundant and that the sum – which was more than legally required – had been paid because “he felt obliged, in the interest of the two plaintiffs, to pay them some money” because of their financial difficulties at the time. The hearing boiled down to a clause in their contracts, which stated that “in the unlikely event of a shortage of work, the company reserves the right to terminate you”.

He added: “If necessary, the company will honor its obligations to make the payment of the legal guarantee to you which is limited to a maximum of five days in any three-month period. The daily amount is subject to a ceiling which is reviewed annually.

In his decision, Labor Judge Barry Speker said it was clear they had been fired. “There was not just a shortage of work, there was a total absence of work and claimants, although ready and willing to work, were not required to do so,” his summary said.

However, he said that if he had given Mr. Wu “credit” for paying the two beyond what was owed to them in their contracts, he said the company should have “put the things in writing”. As such, he said they were entitled to approximately three weeks of accrued pay before the layoff took effect.

He awarded Mr Carr £1,531.26 and Miss Ramsay £1,406.25, adding: “I have expressed my sympathy to everyone involved in what is clearly an unfortunate situation which all expected that a reopened restaurant is trading profitably and supporting the applicants in another job they both said they enjoyed at the restaurant and for Mr. Wu, and his co-manager, a profitable business. circumstances described, this was not the case.

Teesside Live has attempted to contact the defendant, 108 (Darlington) Limited T/A The Chinese Buffet, for comment. The company launched its first restaurant, in Bolton, in 2006 and has a chain of locations across the North West while boasting of providing “authentic Chinese cuisine, served with a modern twist”.


Comments are closed.