‘Insult to my culture’: Italian chef sacked after refusing to put pineapple on pizza

An Italian chef who refused to put pineapple on pizza because it was “an insult to his culture” has failed to regain his job after waiting too long to file an unfair dismissal application with the country’s fair work umpire.

Davide Tamburella, who was a resident on a visa, began working as a chef at a now-closed restaurant in Queensland’s Fortitude Valley called La Costa in January 2023.

According to the Fair Work Commission, in April 2026 Tamburella was injured in the workplace when he struck a metal handrail, fracturing the fourth and fifth metacarpals of his right hand.

The reasons given by his employer for Tamburella’s dismissal included that incident but also use of inappropriate language and escalation of the situation during service, failure to manage the situation in accordance with previously discussed expectations and processes, and a recent incident where he acknowledged refusing to follow a management direction relating to a customer request.

In May, Tamburella was called into a meeting to address performance concerns.

During this meeting his employer raised the issue of Tamburella refusing to put pineapple on pizza for a function.

Tamburella said he refused the request because “as an Italian … putting pineapple on a pizza is an insult to [his] culture”, and that the direction from his boss did not need to be followed when it was offensive to his culture.

Tamburella acknowledged it was the third time in four years that he refused this direction, and that he requested his employer check how important it is for Italians not to put pineapple on a pizza.

The employer also said there had been previous discussions and concerns regarding Tamburella’s “communication style, interactions with staff and conduct during service”, prior conduct concerns involving escalation of frustration in the workplace, and ongoing concerns regarding “leadership behaviour, professionalism, emotional regulation during service and compliance with workplace direction”.

Tamburella was sacked on May 20 and needed to submit his unfair dismissal application within 21 days of being dismissed. However, he ended up filing his application 28 days late.

Tamburella said he refused the request because ‘as an Italian … putting pineapple on a pizza is an insult to [his] culture’.

Immediately after his dismissal, Tamburella contacted the migration lawyer who had been advising him. He said the lawyer advised him “not to wake the sleeping dog” and to wait, focus on his recovery, and not to take action against the employer yet because doing so could cause them to withdraw the subclass 186 nomination needed to maintain his visa.

By early July, Tamburella claimed, his injuries allowed him to attempt to use a computer.

Tamburella included a letter from his doctor in the application indicating ongoing symptoms from the workplace injury, and that the need for continued medical attention may have contributed to delay in seeking advice from the commission within the usual time frame.

He also included a letter from a registered counsellor showing he reported feeling stress, heightened anxiety and disturbed sleep following the injury.

Tamburella said he was under substantial stress about his employment, visa status and livelihood, and was having difficulty with his focus, finding it difficult to read, retain and organise information.

He also said he was waiting for documents and that he wanted to make sure he had all materials included before submitting his application.

“I decided to wait a little bit longer just to collect all the data that I needed because otherwise I would be presenting something that would be already late and plus not completed,” he told the commission.

However, Hunt said it was “very important” to get an application in on time, and that applicants can always ask for leave for adding material.

Tamburella also said he was waiting for a possible subclass 186 visa nomination to be granted before taking action.

While the commission can provide an extension depending on the reason for the delay and the merits of the application, commissioner Jennifer Hunt ruled there were no “exceptional circumstances” to warrant an extension of time for the application, therefore dismissing the case.

“While I accept that Mr Tamburella was suffering some pain, brain fog and was taking strong prescribed drugs following his dismissal on 20 May 2026, he had capacity to engage with his first and then second migration lawyer, use his mobile phone, provide instructions to his fiancee and also enjoy two weekends away to relax,” she said.

“It cannot be said that Mr Tamburella was without capacity to bring his application within time. Only when he was advised that the nomination had to be withdrawn because Home Affairs was aware that he was no longer employed did Mr Tamburella consider that it would be prudent to bring an application. [He] was, in essence, hedging his bets.”

While Tamburella argued that the termination was at least in part motivated by him suffering a workplace injury in April and making a claim, his employer said there had been a documented disciplinary process arising from workplace conduct concerns that predated the injury.

“I do not consider the circumstances of this case to be out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon,” the commission said, noting the reasons provided for dismissal appeared to be strong. “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 [in this case] are not great.”

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.