IVY FACES TIP-SHARING ROW AS WAITER CHALLENGES FAIRNESS OF SERVICE CHARGE

The Ivy is facing legal action from a former waiter who claims he received an unfair share of tips and service charges. The case raises questions about how one of the UK’s best-known restaurant chains distributes gratuities among its staff under new legislation designed to make the process more transparent.

The waiter, who resigned earlier this year, alleges he was allocated less than £100 from a service charge pot of more than £30,000 collected in a single month. He argues this was far below a fair proportion of the money based on the hours he worked and compared with colleagues. After repeatedly asking for details of how his share was calculated, he is now bringing a claim of constructive dismissal.

At the centre of the dispute is the Ivy’s “tronc” system, where service charges are pooled and distributed through a points-based scheme. While the company says this method is fair, overseen by staff representatives and an independent consultancy, employees are not given a breakdown of how their points are awarded or how their allocation compares with others. Critics argue this leaves workers in the dark about whether tips are being divided equitably.

New laws introduced in 2023 require restaurants to share 100% of service charges with workers in a fair and transparent manner, and to provide staff with clear information on how money is distributed. This case could become a test of how much detail employers are obliged to disclose.

The Ivy insists it complies fully with the law and strongly denies the claims. It argues the scheme has been welcomed by staff and that detailed information has been provided to workers in line with legal requirements. The company says it will challenge the allegations when the tribunal hearing takes place next year.

For diners, the dispute highlights a growing debate in hospitality over where tips really go and whether staff receive the rewards customers intend. With nearly 40 restaurants in the UK and Ireland, the outcome of this case could have implications far beyond one waiter’s payslip.