The recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision in Mr Davide Tamburella v The Trustee For La Costa Hospitality Unit Trust [2026] FWC 4264, arising from an application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal, has attracted international attention, largely because it has reignited the longstanding culinary debate as to whether pineapple belongs on pizza. (As an aside, on this I stand with my Italian friends – it doesn’t.)
One fundamental point that is almost invariably overlooked or minimised in the reporting on the case is that it was merely an application for an extension of time. It was not a final hearing on the merits of the matter. The employment of the applicant, Mr Tamburella, was terminated on 20 May 2026. He brought his application on 8 July 2026, well outside the 21-day time limit for general protections matters involving dismissal. In order to extend the permitted time, the FWC must be satisfied there are “exceptional circumstances”. The FWC was not so satisfied and, therefore, the application was dismissed. The outcome of the case had very little to do with an assessment of what constitutes an appropriate pizza topping.
As noted in the decision, in determining whether there were “exceptional circumstances”, Commissioner Hunt stated (at paragraph 50):
“I do not consider the circumstances of this case to be out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon.”
Of course, the subsequent attention the case has received from the media might suggest otherwise, but not in a way that supported the applicant.
Even though it was not a final substantive hearing, but rather an extension of time application, the merits of the case were nevertheless briefly considered. On the question of merits Commissioner Hunt observed (among other things) at paragraph 46:
“Mr Tamburella’s frustration within the workplace and the way that he behaved on numerous occasions would lead me to conclude that his prospects of success are not great. I am not satisfied that the merits of the application are supportive of an extension of time being granted.”
One of these frustrations, of course, was the applicant being directed to accede to the tastes of customers and put pineapple on pizza. In this regard it was noted (at paragraph 24):
“The Respondent’s evidence is that during the meeting of 6 May 2026 to address performance concerns the Respondent had with Mr Tamburella, the issue of him refusing to put pineapple on a pizza for a function was raised. Mr Tamburella confirmed that he was aware of Mr Ingram’s direction for pineapple to be put on a pizza, but he refused it as he considers, as an Italian, that putting pineapple on a pizza is an insult to his culture. He stated that the direction need not be followed when it is offensive to his culture. He acknowledged that it is the third time in four years that he refused this direction and he requested the Respondent check how important it is for Italians not to put pineapple on a pizza.”
The failure to follow these directions was just one of the matters relied upon by the respondent employer. It was not the focus of the case. The decision is not a determinative ruling on whether an employee could decline to prepare food (or undertake other analogous tasks) in a particular way because of cultural considerations.
So, that still leaves this interesting question largely unresolved: could an employee refuse to put pineapple on a pizza, or refuse to prepare some other food combination (on a pizza or otherwise), on the basis that it is considered “offensive” to the culture of that employee?
The starting point is that an employer has a right to issue lawful and reasonable directions to employees. Employees have a duty to comply with such directions. A failure to comply with such a direction may constitute serious misconduct justifying summary termination of employment.
Assuming the food combination in question does not breach hygiene standards, or in some other way constitutes a safety risk, then it is highly unlikely the direction will not be lawful.
Similarly, a recalcitrant chef is not going to find much more support in arguing the direction is not reasonable. There are few circumstances where such an argument might succeed, even if the resultant culinary output offends the cultural sensitivities of the chef.
Two such circumstances arguably are:
- A religious or genuinely held cultural belief where the employee makes their specific boundaries clear to the employer prior to the decision to employ. The direction would need to transgress the declared and accepted boundary in some way.
- Where the chef is well known, and the offerings of the café or restaurant are inextricably linked to the reputation of that chef. In that context, the chef might argue that complying with the direction might be damaging to their credibility and standing by serving food inconsistent with their culinary style or ethos.
Outside of limited circumstances such as these, the sensitivities of the chef are largely going to be irrelevant. Cultural considerations, in this context, can be given short shrift. To paraphrase an old proverb, “He who pays for the pizza can pick the pineapple”.
