Ivy is facing a legal battle with a former waiter who claims the upscale restaurant chain has unfairly allocated a series of tips and service fees – despite a new law requiring fair and transparent distribution, it refuses to explain how to calculate his parts.
The part-time waiter resigned in June and asked not to be named, accusing constructive sacking and saying his share of the £31,562 monthly tips and service fees at his branch were “totally unfair”.
He claimed that during his 43-hour work in March, he initially received a £46.34 remuneration and service fee, which later increased to £97.45. According to his estimates, he made up about 2% of the total staff that month, but he received less than 1% of the total funds.
Ivy objected to his calculations, calling them “inaccurate and misleading” and said an independent consulting firm oversees its distribution process. The company has labeled the former actor with a former employee who is “dissatisfied and smeared” and vowed to challenge the claims in the April 2026 employment court.
Under the Employment (Hint Allocation) Act of 2023, 100% of the service fees charged on the site must be shared in a fair and transparent manner, and employees have the right to know how to allocate and allocate skills.
Ivy, owned by Richard Caring’s Troia (UK) restaurant, said it complies with legislation in the “TRONC” regime where staff are allocated as “TRONC points” to determine its monthly share. However, employees are not told how to determine these points or how they are assigned to other team members.
A company spokesperson said: “We absolutely refute all claims being filed and will provide all the necessary evidence to interpret these allegations with the Employment Tribunal. We have proposed a fair and transparent plan after consultation with employee representatives and an independent, independent third-party business oversight employee.”
Revealing a single TRONC allocation could violate employee privacy, Ivy said.
Michael Newman, an employment lawyer for Leigh Day, said the case could test the strength of the new legislation: “This is to make the system more fair. Either the system is avoided or the law has not achieved its purpose. The case could clarify if the employer had to provide more details about the cost of the service.”
The waiter’s payslips did not separate personal prompts from service fees, nor did they disclose their share compared to kitchen staff or managers. He claimed that from the end of 2023, repeated requests for clarification have not been answered.
In April, he warned about the alleged performance issues, which he challenged and said he had made formal tips to allocate details at the same time. He resigned two months later.
The court’s outcome may have a profound impact on hospitality employers and employees, thus potentially more transparent in how skills and service costs are allocated.
