Martin R Hyde v Chef Gordon Ramsay

[Ste]

I watched about half an hour of Chef Ramsay's Nightmares programme and found it compulsive viewing.

Ramsay went into an Indian Restaurant in New York and supposedly turned it around. THe show featured him getting on the back of Martin the restaurant manager, blaming him for the poor quality of the food, cockroaches in the kitchen, rotting food (served) etc. Martin walked.

What concerned me was that he didn't show Martin's employment terms. Was he actually responsible for the kitchen? (If so, it seemed a shambles...even dangerous).

Being the nosey person that I am, I thought that martin might sue Ramsay as the latter made him look an idiot.

Yes it does look like Martin is suing Ramsay. The writ (in my view) doesn't seem well drafted, if you go by English legal standards. Whether adequte or not in American law I do not know. I am talking mainly about style. But hillariously, the attorney (Carl Pearson I think) alleges that Ramsay is one of the hardest men in Britain (having recently won a bare knuckle gypsy fight)and a Captain in the SAS. He refers to a website which I looked at. There is a well honed Gordon Ramsay shown in a photograph which is obviously CG'd.

Can anyone shed any light on whether Ramsay is a hardman or not? He looks a bit of a big bully to me who would not take a punch. OK he was an ex footballer.

[Barry Shnikov]

Originally Posted by Ste

I watched about half an hour of Chef Ramsay's Nightmares programme and found it compulsive viewing.

Ramsay went into an Indian Restaurant in New York and supposedly turned it around. THe show featured him getting on the back of Martin the restaurant manager, blaming him for the poor quality of the food, cockroaches in the kitchen, rotting food (served) etc. Martin walked.

What concerned me was that he didn't show Martin's employment terms. Was he actually responsible for the kitchen? (If so, it seemed a shambles...even dangerous).

Being the nosey person that I am, I thought that martin might sue Ramsay as the latter made him look an idiot.

Yes it does look like Martin is suing Ramsay. The writ (in my view) doesn't seem well drafted, if you go by English legal standards. Whether adequte or not in American law I do not know. I am talking mainly about style. But hillariously, the attorney (Carl Pearson I think) alleges that Ramsay is one of the hardest men in Britain (having recently won a bare knuckle gypsy fight)and a Captain in the SAS. He refers to a website which I looked at. There is a well honed Gordon Ramsay shown in a photograph which is obviously CG'd.

Can anyone shed any light on whether Ramsay is a hardman or not? He looks a bit of a big bully to me who would not take a punch. OK he was an ex footballer.

Sigh.

LINKS PLEASE!

[Lou]

Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov

Sigh.

LINKS PLEASE!

*sigh*

Google is your friend.

Hyde v. Ramsay et al :: Justia News

[Rocky]

I saw it too and it was great viewing. Interestingly though this is the only time I have seen anyone actually walk out and resign (and stay out) in any of these series despite extreme provocation from Ramsay (but then I haven't seen them all). But wasn't that bloke f***ing sh1t at his job?!

What normally happens is a massive verbal battle followed by the person accepting their faults (eventually...) and it all coming good in the end. Whatever you may think of him he does have an ability to turn businesses around and clearly does know how to cook and manage a kitchen.

He was an ex pro footballer (although I think he only played for the reserves) which means he must be as soft as sh1t and would fall over if a punch came anywhere near him - and it is well reported that Marco Pierre White made him cry on more than one occasion...

But just like Jamie Oliver, I wish he wouldn't f***ing swear so f***ing much as he will end up having a f***ing great heart attack. Its not necessary and when used constantly it loses it's impact.

[ShinyWeeStar]

Originally Posted by Ste

I watched about half an hour of Chef Ramsay's Nightmares programme and found it compulsive viewing.

Ramsay went into an Indian Restaurant in New York and supposedly turned it around. THe show featured him getting on the back of Martin the restaurant manager, blaming him for the poor quality of the food, cockroaches in the kitchen, rotting food (served) etc. Martin walked.

What concerned me was that he didn't show Martin's employment terms. Was he actually responsible for the kitchen? (If so, it seemed a shambles...even dangerous).

I watched this too and the kitchen was in more than a shambles! I thought these places were supposed to be monitored by health and safety inspectors? Suffice to say, the place required deep steam cleaning to bring it up to standard...

If I remember correctly, Martin was the operations manager. From a quick Google search, this would mean he was responsible for producing the right amount of a good or service, at the right time, of the right quality and at the right cost to meet customer requirements. None of which he did...

Operations managers' responsibilities include:

• Human resource management – the people employed by an organisation either work directly to create a good or service or provide support to those who do. People and the way they are managed are a key resource of all organisations.
• Asset management – an organisation's buildings, facilities, equipment and stock are directly involved in or support the operations function.
• Cost management – most of the costs of producing goods or services are directly related to the costs of acquiring resources, transforming them or delivering them to customers.

The page I found (from the Open University site) goes on to mention decisions required by operations managers in relation to:

1. the processes by which goods and services are produced
2. the quality of goods or services
3. the quantity of goods or services (the capacity of operations)
4. the stock of materials (inventory) needed to produce goods or services
5. the management of human resources.

On this basis it would seem that:

1) Martin was responsible for overseeing the process of getting the food from storeroom to customer. To me this would suggest ensuring that kitchens etc were kept clean and organised. His only input was when he stepped in as extra chef to ensure those ordering Western cuisine got their dinner!
2) He was responsible for the quality of the food - which was being served regardless of rot/mould, how long ago it had been cooked, whether it was vegetarian or not (for those who missed it, Gordon Ramsay ordered a veggie course and found meat in it), etc.
3/4) He was responsible for ensuring the kitchens were stocked properly, only they didn't have all the food they required (trust Gordon to order something they didn't have in...) and what they did have wasn't fit for human consumption.
5) Martin was responsible for managing the staff, but not only did they have a chef who could only cook half the menu and a waitress who didn't seem to know what she was doing (the Indian one, was she even on the same planet?), he appeared to have no management skills whatsoever and the whole restaurant fell apart under his "guidance".

Martin would also have been responsible for the building, facilities and equipment (which were filthy and ridden with rats, flies and cockroaches), and admitted he was responsible for keeping things in good running/working order - cue shot of dodgy table leg stabilised with what looked like a paper napkin...

Originally Posted by Rocky

But wasn't that bloke f***ing sh1t at his job?!

Even to a muggle like me, that man was not doing his job, let alone doing it well and IMO he only butted into the conversation to resign after he overheard Gordon suggest that he be fired.

Quotes from http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=161695.

[Barry Shnikov]

Thanks for the Justia link.

If you look, you'll see that this matter came to an end in August last year. The most recent document is the US equivalent of what we call over here a 'consent order', that is to say an order that the court makes with the consent of both parties.

That means that there has been an out-of-court settlement. What we don't know - at least, I don't - is who got the better half of that. Was the episode ever broadcast? (In America, that is.)

It occurs to me that if your restaurant really was so disgusting that cockroaches were a problem, it would be stupid to apply to appear in something like Ramsay's programme. On the other hand, it's probably months between the application and the filming and the infestation could happen in the interim.

It also occurs to me that even in New York I would have thought that it would be risky to sack a senior employee because he was criticised by the makers of a TV programme.

Ho hum.

NO MORE LAW FOR ME for four whole days. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh...