1500297 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 3979

1500297 (Migration) [2016] AATA 3979 (26 May 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  TLC Foods Pty Ltd

CASE NUMBER:  1500297

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2014/1778291

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:26 May 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

Statement made on 26 May 2016 at 9:44am

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 24 December 2014 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under r.5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

2. The applicant applied for approval on 21 July 2014. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in r.5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination (r.5.19(3)) stream and a Direct Entry nomination (r.5.19(4)) stream. If the application is made in accordance with r.5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: r.5.19(5).

3. In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in Direct Entry Nomination stream.

4. The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.19(4)(h) of the Regulations because the delegate was not satisfied the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation at the skill level of ANZSCO skill level 1, 2 or 3.

5. Ms Mi Young Kim, company director, appeared on behalf of the applicant before the Tribunal on 27 April 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the nominee, Ms Jooyeon Jung. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Korean and English languages.

6. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent who also attended the hearing.

7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream set out in r.5.19(4), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.

   Background

9. The applicant trades as Tosung Charcoal BBQ, Canberra and nominated the position Café or Restaurant Manager. The business is actively and lawfully operating in regional Australia, and has provided evidence of business registration, business activity statements lodged with the ATO for the last 12 months, and financial reports including the profit and loss statement and balance sheet for the year ending 30 June 2015. The employment contract for the nominee indicates that the terms and conditions of employment include a 38 hour per week and an annual base salary of $55,000 plus superannuation.

10. The delegate had regard to the information provided after the application, and the ANZSCO definition for the position (a copy of which is attached to this decision). The delegate noted that the ANZSCO skills include ‘plan menus in consultation with Chefs’ however the business did not employ a Chef. The delegate noted that another ANZSCO task ‘select, train and supervise staff’ but she found the information provided did not indicate the position will select or train staff.  The delegate also noted that the business already has a SC 457 visa holder employed as a full-time Café or Restaurant Manager and there was no explanation provided as to why the business requires another such position. The delegate was not satisfied the nominee would undertake the tasks of a Café or Restaurant Manager.

    Evidence provided to the Tribunal

11. Prior to the hearing, the applicant provided the following evidence to the Tribunal:

    a.   Business Activity Statements for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016

    b.   employment contract for the position’s nominee dated 8 July 2014

    c.   financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2015, including the profit and loss statement and the balance sheet recording salary expenditure of $176,270

    d.   payslips for the nominee in the period 22 December 2015 to 18 January 2016

    e.   Regional Certifying Body, ACT assessment dated 1 December 2014 concluding that there is a genuine need for the position and it cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident living in the local area. The assessment states that while there is support for a second Café or Restaurant Manager position, the RCB has concerns regarding the nominee as she does not appear to have the relevant qualification or experience to perform the duties of a Café or Restaurant Manager as defined in ANZSCO.

    f.   An organisational chart indicating that the business has 2 directors, 2 managers (1 Australian permanent resident and the nominee). It has 1 full-time chef, 2 full-time cooks and 2 part-time cooks. There is 1 full-time worker and 4 part-time workers in the hall.

12. The Tribunal was advised that Ms Minyung Cho, company director, would be appearing at the hearing on behalf of the applicant.  However prior to the hearing the Tribunal was advised that she was unable to attend but that the other company director, Ms Mi Young Kim, would be attending in her place.

    Hearing on 27 April 2016

13. At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with Ms Kim the requirements of r.5.19(4) and that the Tribunal is considering whether the business meets all of the requirements in r.5.19(4)(a) – (h). Ms Kim provided to the Tribunal the following evidence.

14. Ms Kim confirmed that the nominee is currently working in the position needed, undertaking the tasks to be performed by the position to meet the business’ needs. She is working on a full-time basis.

15. The Tribunal asked about the current employees of the business. Ms Kim indicated that there are currently 2 full-time employees working in the kitchen, 1 chef and 1 cook. There are 3 full-time employees working in the hall as waiters. The business also has 2 managers. There are also 2 part-time workers in the kitchen and 2 part-time workers in the hall, all working about 20 hours per week. Ms Kim said that the business has had 5 full-time workers for at least 1½ to 2 years. She claims that the employees have been paid correctly, with tax withheld and forwarded to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). She claims the full time staff have all been paid award wages. However, the part-time workers hours vary each month, so their pay varies.

16. The Tribunal noted that the total salary expenditure for the 2015 financial year was only $176,270. It raised its concern that this did not equate to full-time salaries for 5 workers. It asked Miss Kim how it could be that they are paying 5 full-time workers award wages, but their total salary expenditure for that financial year is less than $200,000. Ms Kim indicated that the business engages an accountant and she could not provide any further explanation as to why the recorded salary expenditure was so low, given the business employed 5 full-time workers in that financial year.

17. The Tribunal asked about the size of the business and its turnover. Ms Kim indicated that there are about 30 tables and the restaurant is open 7 days a week for lunch and dinner. She is not sure how many customers the business has each day as she is based in Sydney. The Tribunal asked if she gets any reports about trade and trading income. She thought the business made about $3000 per day from Monday to Thursday and about $4,000 - 5,000 from Friday to Sunday. She thought the expenditure per customer was about $50. The Tribunal asked about the menu. She indicated it is relatively stable with 3 entrees, 50 different BBQ options and 10 hotpot options.

18. The Tribunal asked Ms Kim to describe the duties of the directors. She indicated that her cousin, Ms Cho used to work in the business but she is now based in Sydney. She has another business Lid and Jar Café at Chatswood and she is opening a large cafe in Rhodes. Ms Kim used to go to the restaurant in Canberra about 2 or 3 times a week but she now resides in Sydney, because she has opened another BBQ restaurant in Strathfield. Her husband goes down to the Canberra restaurant about once a week for supply deliveries. The Tribunal asked about her involvement in the business. She indicated that as a director she has undertaken the bookkeeping and accounting. The Tribunal asked why, in those circumstances, she could not explain why the salary expenditure for the 2015 financial year was only $176,000, if the business employs 5 full-time staff. She said she does not get involved with the wages. She does the bookkeeping, and collects receipts and tax invoices which she then gives to the accountant. She said that Ms Cho’s involvement in the wages is minimal. The Tribunal asked how she and Ms Cho know that the staff are running the business properly, if they are both based in Sydney. She indicated that she goes down to Canberra about 2 or 3 times a week and that the managers report to her.

19. The Tribunal noted from the organisational chart that the business already has a restaurant manager, Ms Wanjin Sung. It asked why, in those circumstances, it needs another restaurant manager. Ms Kim indicated that Ms Sung is now a permanent resident, having been granted a permanent SC 186 visa. She said that she works every evening for 6 nights a week, from 4pm to 11pm. She said that the nominee for this position works from 10am to 4pm. Ms Sung makes reservations and manages customers’ expectations and staff. She also serves in the hall. She mediates between the kitchen and the hall. She deals with customers who have complaints. She also handles money at the counter. She places orders for the business and checks the inventory. She also goes to the market for alcohol.

20. The Tribunal asked Ms Kim why the business needs another restaurant manager given Ms Sung already fulfils that role. Ms Kim indicated that 1 person cannot cover all of the opening hours for the business.  The Tribunal asked about the duties for the nominated position. She indicated that the nominee opens the business in the morning. She undertakes banking duties and checks the reservation list. She manages the lunchtime customers and she coordinates with the other manager in the afternoon.  Having noted that these duties were somewhat different to those set out in the written application, the Tribunal specifically asked if there are any other duties that the position undertakes. Ms Kim indicated that the nominee also serves customers.

21. The Tribunal discussed with Ms Kim the ANZSCO definition for a Cafe or Restaurant Manager. It indicated that it may not be satisfied that the business genuinely needs another Cafe or Restaurant Manager and it might form the view that in fact it needs another employee, but not another manager. The Tribunal also noted that Ms Kim’s description of the position did not correspond to the duties set out in the ANZSCO definition, and that, while the business may need another employee, the position needed may not be that of a Café or Restaurant Manager. Ms Kim indicated that she might have omitted tasks when describing the position. She indicated that the business does not have sufficient people and that the 2 managers have to undertake everything, that is all of the duties, including serving customers. She cannot always be in Canberra because of her busy schedule.

22. The Tribunal asked Ms Kim why all of the duties of the manager could not be undertaken by Ms Sung, if she focused on management and spent less time serving customers, noting that both Ms Sung and the nominee spend time serving customers, rather than on management duties. It suggested to Ms Kim that it may not be satisfied the business needs 2 managers. Ms Kim said that the business does not have enough employees and the nominee is quite good with the customers.

23. The Tribunal noted that r.5.19(4)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position must be no less favourable than those that are, or would be provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location. Ms Kim confirmed that the base salary for the position was $55,000 per annum, the same as Ms Sung’s. The applicant would be working essentially the same number of hours as Ms Sung, about 42 hours a week. She asserted that the nominee’s contract is essentially the same as that of Ms Sung.

24. The Tribunal then took evidence from the nominee, Ms Jung. She told the Tribunal that she works from 10am to 4pm, 7 days a week. She has a 30 minute break each day. She has been the business’ full-time restaurant manager since July 2015. Ms Sung is the restaurant manager at night. She indicated their duties are very similar. She indicated Ms Sung’s duties include supervising staff, monitoring performance, managing reservations, checking stock levels and keeping records of the popular items on the menu. She indicated her duties involve communicating with Ms Sung, placing orders, talking to chefs about any utensils or machinery that needs fixing. For example, the business replaced the knives about 2 months ago. She talks with the chef about the daily special. If there is a function, she discusses the menu and greets customers. She indicated that the business has a function about once a week. She indicated she has no authority to hire or fire staff, but she does provide training to new staff. When asked about training she was vague at first, then indicated that she has trained staff in making eye contact with customers. She indicated that she has interviewed staff, although she could not remember when she last interviewed someone for a position. She described the takings as being about $2000 per day from Monday to Thursday, $3000 from Friday to Saturday and about $2500 - $3000 on Sundays. She indicated that the other manager reports to the business directors and closes the business in the evenings. She indicated that she counts the money. She indicated that Ms Kim visits the business 2 or 3 times a week and she gives the cash to Ms Kim. She indicated that Ms Kim is responsible for paying wages.

25. The Tribunal then gave Ms Kim an opportunity to clarify the apparent inconsistencies in the evidence. It noted that Ms Jung had indicated that Ms Kim arranges the payment of wages, and that she gives Ms Kim the cash when she visits the business.  Ms Kim confirmed that when she goes to the Canberra business she takes the cash from Ms Jung. But she denied being involved in the payment of wages. She indicated that Ms Cho does that. She explained that perhaps Ms Jung thought that she arranged the wages because she took the cash.

26. The Tribunal noted that Ms Jung has said that she worked 7 days a week and that it might find that those terms and conditions are less favourable than those of an Australian permanent resident, Ms Sung, who works only six days a week. Ms Kim said that almost all the staff work 6 days a week, but the business does not have enough people so the nominee is working 7 days a week. However, if Ms Jung has something that she needs to do, she can swap with another worker.

27. The Tribunal agreed to provide further time for the applicant to provide an explanation as to how the salary expenditure would be only $176,000 in the 2015 financial year when the applicant has claimed to have employed 5 full-time staff in that year and paid award wages.

28. On 5 May 2016 the representative provided a written submission in which it is stated that, because of the difficulties in hiring suitable staff in Canberra, candidates recruited in Sydney would be relocated to Canberra and remunerated by another company Tosung Charcoal BBQ, Sydney which is no longer in operation.

    The application is compliant: r.5.19(4)(a)

29. Regulation 5.19(4)(a) requires that the application for approval must be in the approved form, must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and, where applicable, must include the required written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s.245AR(1). The application must also identify a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under their direct control.

30. On the basis of information on the Department’s file, the Tribunal is satisfied the application was made on the approved form and accompanied by the prescribed fee.

31. With respect to the requirement that the applicant identifies a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control, the Tribunal has considered all of the evidence provided by the applicant. The Tribunal observes that Departmental policy states that the assessment of “the need for a paid employee” involves two steps. Firstly, establishing the need for an employee, in terms of a genuine vacancy for the nominated position and, secondly, ascertaining whether the relationship between the nominator and the nominee is that of employer and employee. The Tribunal notes that whilst PAM3 may provide guidance, it is not bound to follow it.

32. The Tribunal is of the view that “identifies a need” suggests more is required that simply a statement or declaration that there is such a need. “Identify” is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as ‘to recognise or establish as being a particular person or thing; attest or prove to be as claimed or asserted’. As a result, the Tribunal considers that it must assess whether there is a genuine need for the nominated position of ‘Café or Restaurant Manager’ (ANZSCO Code 141111) for the purposes of paragraph 5.19(4)(a).  Ms Kim told the Tribunal that the nominee is employed in the position and she is undertaking the duties required for the position by the business.

33. The Tribunal notes that the delegate did not make any specific findings about paragraph 5.19(4)(a). However the decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant sets out the ANZSCO definition for the occupation and the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the requirements of r.5.19(4)(a) at the hearing. The applicant has provided oral evidence that currently the restaurant is open 7 days a week for lunch and dinner. The Tribunal accepts that it has about 30 tables and the takings are between $3000 and $5000, depending on the day. The applicant has taken into account the RCB’s opinion that the business requires a second Café or Restaurant Manager. However, having considered other evidence about the duties undertaken by the 2 managers the Tribunal is not satisfied that this is the case.

34. The written material provided with the application indicates that the position’s duties include staff management, including rostering, customer service and management, quality control, menu planning in conjunction with chef, resolving customer complaints and feedback, maintaining a budget, bookkeeping for the restaurant, estimating food and beverage quantities, and arranging maintenance and repair of equipment and services. This is quite different to the description provided by the applicant at the hearing. Ms Kim indicated that she does the bookkeeping. Her husband is responsible for the supply deliveries. Ms Sung purchases the alcohol, makes reservations and manages customers’ expectations and staff. She deals with customers who have complaints. She places orders for the business and checks the inventory. Ms Kim described the menu as being relatively stable although the nominee said she discusses the daily special with the chef.

35. When asked why the business needs another restaurant manager given Ms Sung already fulfils that role, Ms Kim indicated that 1 person cannot cover all of the opening hours for the business.  She indicated that the nominee opens the business in the morning. She said she undertakes banking duties, although both Ms Kim and the nominee indicated that the cash is handed to Ms Kim, and not banked. The position checks the reservation list, manages the lunchtime customers and coordinates with the other manager in the afternoon.  Having noted that these duties were somewhat different to those set out in the written application, the Tribunal specifically asked if there were any other duties and Ms Kim merely indicated that the nominee serves customers.

1. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has sponsored Ms Sung’s SC 186 visa in the position Café or Restaurant Manager. It notes from Ms Kim’s evidence that Ms Sung undertakes more of the duties of the occupation that that of the nominee. When it considers the oral evidence regarding this position the Tribunal has formed the view only 3 of the duties undertaken by the nominee correspond to the duties set out in the ANZSCO definition. When this was put to her she said that she might have omitted tasks when describing the position but she indicated that the management positions have to undertake all duties, including serving staff, because the business does not have sufficient employees. The Tribunal has considered the nominee’s oral evidence about her duties.  Her description of the position was broader than that provided by Ms Kim. She indicated she also talks to chefs about any utensils or machinery that need fixing and the daily special. If there is a function, about once a week, she discusses the menu and greets customers. Her evidence about training staff lacked detail. She could not remember when she last interviewed someone for a position.

2. Overall the Tribunal accepts that the business requires another employee and that Ms Kim is happy with the nominee’s performance because she is good with the customers. However the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has identified a need for a Café or Restaurant Manager.  Having regard to all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied the business requires the position to plan menus in consultation with the chef. She may consult about a daily special but this is not the same as planning a menu. While it accepts there may be one function per week, having regard to the nature of the business, a charcoal BBQ restaurant, the Tribunal is not satisfied arranging such a function would require much planning or organisation. The Tribunal is not satisfied the position arranges the purchase and pricing of goods according to budget. Apart from preparing the cash for Ms Kim and some banking, it is not satisfied the position maintains records of stock levels and financial transactions. Nor is it satisfied the position ensures dining facilities comply with health regulations and are clean, functional and of suitable appearance. It accepts the position confers with customers to assess their satisfaction with meals and service. It may be involved minimally in selecting and training staff however the oral evidence on this duty was scant. It may take reservations, greet guests and assist in taking orders. It also serves customers. Overall having regard to the business’ needs, the Tribunal is not satisfied the position tasks are at level of complexity of those described in ANZSCO. It is not satisfied the applicant has identified a need to employ a paid employee to work in the position of Café or Restaurant Manager.

3. Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4)(a) is not met.

   No less favourable terms and condition of employment: r.5.19(4)(e)

4. Regulation 5.19(4)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.

5. Ms Kim confirmed at the hearing that Ms Sung, an Australian permanent resident sponsored by the business, works 6 days a week. She also confirmed that the nominee works 7 days a week. While the employment contract specifies that the nominee will work 38 hours per week, plus reasonable additional hours, it does not specify that the nominee will ordinarily work 7 days a week as suggested by Ms Kim at the hearing. When the Tribunal raised its concern that this may indicate that the nominee’s terms and conditions are in fact less favourable than those of the Australian permanent resident, Ms Kim merely said that if the nominee has something that she needs to do, she can swap with another worker.

6. The Tribunal accepts that Ms Sung, an Australian permanent resident, has been sponsored by the applicant to perform the duties of a Café or Restaurant Manager. It accepts that Ms Sung works 6 days a week and that ordinarily the nominee works 7 days a week. It is of the view the nominee’s terms and conditions are less favourable that those of Ms Sung, on the basis of the number of days ordinarily worked. However, while it has some concerns about the expectation that the nominee will ordinarily work 7 days a week, it is not satisfied the nominee and Ms Sung are performing equivalent work as Ms Sung undertakes more duties which correspond with those described in ANZSCO for the occupation. In any case, as the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet r.5.19(4)(a), it is not necessary for the Tribunal to make a finding as to whether r.5.19(4)(e) is met.

7. For the above reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19(4). The applicant has not sought to satisfy the criteria in Temporary Residence Transition Nomination stream, and as such has not met the requirements in r.5.19(3). Accordingly, the nomination of the position cannot be approved. Therefore, the Tribunal must affirm the decision under review.

   DECISION

8. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the nomination.

   Denise Connolly
   Member

   
   

   ATTACHMENT  -  EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994

   5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)

   …

   (2)The application must:

   (a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and

   (b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.

   …

   Direct Entry nomination

   (4)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:

   (a)the application for approval:

   (i)       is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and

   (ii)      identifies a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control; and

   (b)the nominator:

   (i)       is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and

   (ii)      directly operates the business; and

   (c)for a nominator whose business activities include activities relating to the hiring of labour to other unrelated businesses — the position is within the business activities of the nominator and not for hire to other unrelated businesses; and

   (d)both of the following apply:

   (i)       the employee will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years;

   (ii)      the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and

   (e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:

   (i)       are provided; or

   (ii)      would be provided;

   to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and

   (f)either:

   (i)       there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or

   (ii)      it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and

   (g)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations; and

   (h)either:

   (i)       both of the following apply:

   (A)the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;

   (B)either:

   (I)the nominator’s business has operated for at least 12 months, and the nominator meets the requirements for the training of Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents that are specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-sub-subparagraph; or

   (II)the nominator’s business has operated for less than 12 months, and the nominator has an auditable plan for meeting the requirements specified in the instrument mentioned in sub-sub-subparagraph (I); or

   (ii)      all of the following apply:

   (A)the position is located in regional Australia;

   (B)there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control;

   (C)the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident who is living in the same local area as that place;

   (D)the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation at a skill level of ANZSCO skill level 1, 2 or 3;

   (E)the business operated by the nominator is located at that place;

   (F)a body that is:

   (I)specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and

   (II)located in the same State or Territory as the location of the position;

   has advised the Minister about the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) and sub-subparagraphs (B) and (C).

   1220.0 - ANZSCO - Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations, 2013, Version 1.2  

   UNIT GROUP 1411 CAFE AND RESTAURANT MANAGERS

   CAFE AND RESTAURANT MANAGERS organise and control the operations of cafes, restaurants and related establishments to provide dining and catering services.

   Indicative Skill Level:
   Most occupations in this unit group have a level of skill commensurate with the qualifications and experience outlined below.
   In Australia:

   AQF Associate Degree, Advanced Diploma or Diploma (ANZSCO Skill Level 2)

   
   In New Zealand:

   NZ Register Diploma (ANZSCO Skill Level 2)

   
   At least three years of relevant experience may substitute for the formal qualifications listed above. In some instances relevant experience and/or on-the-job training may be required in addition to the formal qualification.

   Tasks Include:

   oplanning menus in consultation with Chefs

   oplanning and organising special functions

   oarranging the purchasing and pricing of goods according to budget

   omaintaining records of stock levels and financial transactions

   oensuring dining facilities comply with health regulations and are clean, functional and of suitable appearance

   oconferring with customers to assess their satisfaction with meals and service

   oselecting, training and supervising waiting and kitchen staff

   omay take reservations, greet guests and assist in taking orders

   
   Occupation:

   141111 Cafe or Restaurant Manager