Two disciplinary cases over 'bad attitude' in a hotel kitchen

Disciplinary cases for 'bad attitude': manage, warn, or dismiss

Disciplinary proceedings exist, are written up, and sometimes signed. In a hotel kitchen, a team leader—who presents himself as a cook, not the owner—describes having peine two in a short time against two workers. The first, a cook with a quick temper, will according to his version end in a simple warning. The second, an assistant who only did the basics, probably in dismissal. The story has turned into a tug-of-war over the power of middle management in hospitality: is it legitimate to resort to disciplinary proceedings or is it a way to dodge responsibility?

The case that started with a power outage

The origin of the first case was technical: a fault in the electrical installation forced the restaurant to close in the afternoon and leave only fridges and freezers running. With no evening service, the afternoon shift began preparing the next day's production. The company maintains that the workload was redistributed so that no one did more than an ordinary day—45 minutes less, even—and that the morning shift took the worst of it. The sanctioned worker saw it differently and, according to the account, took it out on his colleagues.

Behind the episode there is a figure that the manager himself handles: 3 people had to do in four hours the work that five usually do. The detail of that redistribution—how many total hours, how they were divided, what was left undone—is precisely what pits the two readings of the case against each other.

When the attitude did not change, the written disciplinary process arrived. The worker refused to sign it. The union representative, according to this version, told him he had no right to complain.

Is 'bad attitude' sufficient grounds for dismissal?

The manager himself admits that it will all end in a warning and that the second incident—the one that could lead to dismissal—will be replaced by a suspension of employment and pay of two days. It is no coincidence. In the workplace, 'bad attitude' is a catch-all that holds up poorly in court: a case based on generic conduct, without concrete and dated facts, falls apart when it comes to defending it before a judge. Some warn that these matters end up in court and there something more tangible than an impression is required.

The strategy has another reading. A prior disciplinary case builds the narrative for a later dismissal: if the worker reoffends, the termination will be more justified. The doubt is whether that preparation protects the company or only prolongs an exit that was already decided.

The contract that arrived by mistake and the assistant who leaves

The second case adds an uncomfortable layer. The assistant, with continuous problems with all colleagues and an alleged lack of empathy, ended up with a permanent contract due to a mistake that the manager himself describes as negligent. The error is blamed on regional human resources management and was settled, according to his account, with a complaint and a minor disciplinary case. Here the disciplinary process did not work: there was a change and greater initiative that quickly faded.

There emerges the argument that runs through the entire discussion: the company has tools, but often does not use them well or uses them late. The hiring mistake is not paid for; the employee who suffers it does not get paid either.

The nine colleagues nobody looks at

The manager insists on a point that usually stays out of focus: it is not two workers against a company, it is nine colleagues who, according to his version, bear the bad atmosphere generated by the sanctioned workers. It is the classic argument to justify punishment: the conflict does not only damage the relationship with the boss, it damages the entire team. Those who dispute it respond that a bad climate can also stem from management itself, not always from the unruly worker.

And in the middle appears the uncomfortable question: if someone performs well 90% of the time and their only problem is dealing with others, does the disciplinary case fix anything or does it just leave a record?

At-will dismissal and Austrian backpack: the exit one side calls for

Faced with the disciplinary maze, one strand of analysis proposes something simpler: at-will dismissal and the Austrian backpack, a system in which each month the worker accumulates their share of severance. With that own fund, they argue, employee and company would part ways without further ado when the relationship does not work. The problem is that the model requires a market with low unemployment and decent wages, conditions that are not those of Spain.

The other side of the debate does not dispute the tool, but who handles it. It is noted that a middle manager believes he is defending 'the company' when in reality he is doing the dirty work from above, and that he often lacks the rank to sign a sanction. The manager's response is direct: whoever selects personnel and has taken leadership courses knows what they are doing. The echo of the discussion—the profile of the boss who thinks he is the company—is, in reality, the true issue of the case.

---

The disciplinary case remains open, the warning is signed or not, and the conflict continues inside the kitchen. No one has yet explained why the chosen path was neither clean dismissal nor mediation, but a piece of paper that will probably end in nothing. There, right at that point, the analysis gets stuck.