Disciplinary proceedings reported by two media outlets
The reported developments are unusual in the discreet world of luxury hospitality.
According to articles published on 26 October 2026 by Monaco-Matin and News.mc, Société des Bains de Mer reportedly chose to communicate publicly about disciplinary proceedings initiated against several employees of Le Grill, the fine-dining restaurant located within Hôtel de Paris Monte-Carlo.
According to statements attributed to management and reproduced by the two publications, the employees concerned allegedly consumed alcohol at their workplace during service, using stock belonging to the establishment.
SBM reportedly commissioned an internal investigation, following which it claimed to have gathered factual, verified and consistent evidence.
According to the account attributed to management, the alleged conduct would constitute breaches of internal regulations and rules governing the use of company property. It would also raise workplace safety concerns.
These details are based exclusively on information reported by the two publications. LTH has not been able to examine the original company statement or the findings of the internal investigation.
At least fourteen employees reportedly involved, according to Monaco-Matin
According to information reported specifically by Monaco-Matin, at least fourteen employees were allegedly placed on precautionary suspension pending a decision by the human resources department.
However, this figure does not appear in the excerpts from the company statement reproduced by the media.
SBM reportedly stated that each case was being examined individually and that the employees concerned had been given an opportunity to provide their explanations, with the option of being accompanied.
Management also reportedly emphasised that any sanctions would be proportionate to the facts established in each individual case.
At this stage, no independently verified information establishes the nature of any final disciplinary decisions.
A particularly unusual form of public communication
Beyond the alleged conduct itself, it is primarily SBM’s reported decision to bring an internal disciplinary matter to the attention of the media that raises questions.
If the publication of the statement were confirmed in the terms reported, it could be explained by management’s desire to respond publicly to allegations of anti-union retaliation.
SBM would thus have sought to frame the proceedings as a disciplinary matter and defend the legitimacy of its actions.
However, such an approach could produce a paradoxical effect: giving national, or even international, exposure to a dispute initially confined to one establishment and its employees.
A delicate balance between institutional defence and confidentiality
The situation raises a broader question of corporate governance and crisis communication.
An employer must be able to enforce its internal rules and ensure the safety of both employees and guests.
It must also be able to respond to public allegations that could damage its reputation.
However, communicating about individual disciplinary proceedings, particularly when they may still be ongoing, raises other concerns: protecting those involved, maintaining the confidentiality of discussions and preserving constructive industrial relations.
Even without publishing names, identifying a specific property and department could make it easier to recognise the employees concerned within their professional environment.
The challenge would therefore be to reconcile the company’s right to defend its position with the discretion required when dealing with individual employment matters.
LTH Analysis | Was it appropriate to make an internal disciplinary matter public?
If the information published by Monaco-Matin and News.mc is confirmed, this case would represent an unusual example of corporate communication being used in an industrial relations dispute.
SBM would have chosen to respond to a union allegation by publicly detailing the conduct attributed to certain employees.
It goes without saying that we are not prejudging the legality of such a decision, which must be assessed under Monegasque law, without simplistically applying provisions of French law.
Such a communication strategy could help defend the employer’s position, but it could also risk amplifying the media exposure of the dispute.
The central question would therefore not be whether a company is entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings, but whether it is appropriate to disclose the alleged grounds publicly before those proceedings have reached their conclusion.
In luxury hospitality, a property’s reputation depends as much on the quality of its service as on the trust between management and employees.
At the time of writing, LTH has been unable to verify directly the content of the statement attributed to SBM, as the “Press Releases” section of its corporate website was inaccessible.
At a Glance
Company: Société des Bains de Mer (SBM).
Property: Hôtel de Paris Monte-Carlo.
Restaurant: Le Grill.
Location: Monaco.
Media reports: Monaco-Matin and News.mc, 26 October 2026.
Reported issue: Internal disciplinary proceedings involving several employees.
Alleged conduct: Alcohol consumption during working hours using company stock.
Employees reportedly concerned: At least 14, according to Monaco-Matin.
Reported union dispute: Allegations of anti-union retaliation, reportedly rejected by SBM.
Original company statement: Not independently accessed by LTH.
Final disciplinary outcomes: Not verified.
LTH perspective: The unusual public communication of an internal disciplinary matter and its implications for corporate reputation, employee confidentiality and industrial relations.
