Zero-hours chef dismissed after safety complaints: whistleblowing claim fails
A chef on a zero-hours contract lost his whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal found he was dismissed for an argument, not for raising kitchen safety concerns.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #interim-relief
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #zero-hours-contract
- #chef
- #kitchen-safety
- #dismissal-date-dispute
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a chef on a zero hours contract from 16 June 2021.
- The claimant made oral disclosures about kitchen safety issues to managers between June and November 2021.
- On 5 December 2021, after an argument, the head chef told the claimant to 'go and not come back', dismissing him.
- The claimant sent an email on 7 December 2021 complaining about kitchen mismanagement and safety.
- A meeting on 15 December 2021 ended with the claimant being asked to leave; he was not reinstated.
- The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was the argument on 5 December, not the protected disclosures.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a chef on a zero hours contract at Troubadour Properties Ltd.
-
First day of work
Claimant started working, later agreeing to work one day per week on Sundays.
-
Argument and dismissal by head chef
After a shift, head chef Dominic Silversides told the claimant to 'go and not come back', dismissing him.
-
Email to management
Claimant sent an email to managers complaining about kitchen mismanagement, broken equipment, and unsafe conditions.
-
WhatsApp message to staff group
Claimant sent a message to the kitchen WhatsApp group about his email and the deletion of his shift.
-
Meeting with management
Claimant met with Mr Hardeling and Mr Silversides; the meeting ended with the claimant being asked to leave.
-
Claim presented
Claimant submitted his claim to the employment tribunal, including an application for interim relief.
-
Interim relief hearing
Employment Judge A James granted interim relief, finding the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of success.
-
Final hearing (part 1)
Employment Judge Sullivan dismissed claims for unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay, but upheld wrongful dismissal.
-
Final hearing (part 2)
Employment Judge Glennie heard evidence on the whistleblowing claims.
-
Judgment on whistleblowing claims
Tribunal dismissed claims for automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for making protected disclosures.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed for making protected disclosures (whistleblowing) or for other reasons, and whether he suffered detriment for making such disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims for automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for making protected disclosures.
Key reasons:
- The principal reason for dismissal was the argument on 5 December, not the disclosures.
- The email on 7 December and subsequent communications were not the cause of dismissal.
- The claimant had less than two years' service, so ordinary unfair dismissal was not available.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A whistleblowing claim requires the protected disclosure to be the principal reason for dismissal – a dispute or argument can break that link.
- Zero-hours contract workers have the same whistleblowing rights as other employees, but must still prove the reason for dismissal.
- Making a disclosure after being told to leave does not retroactively make the dismissal whistleblowing-related.
- Interim relief can be granted at an early stage even if the final claim fails – it is a lower threshold test.
A chef's safety complaints and a kitchen argument
A chef working on a zero-hours contract for Troubador Properties Limited raised concerns about kitchen safety issues between June and November 2021. After an argument with the head chef on 5 December 2021, he was told to 'go and not come back'. Two days later, he sent an email detailing mismanagement and safety problems. A meeting on 15 December ended with him being asked to leave.
Why the whistleblowing claim failed
The tribunal accepted that the chef had made protected disclosures about kitchen safety. However, the key question was whether those disclosures were the reason for his dismissal. The evidence showed that the argument on 5 December – not the later email – triggered the dismissal. The head chef's instruction to leave was immediate and linked to the personal dispute, not the safety complaints.
What the losing side could have done differently
For the claimant, the timing was critical. The email came after the dismissal had already occurred, so it could not be the cause. To succeed in a whistleblowing claim, the disclosure must be the principal reason for the dismissal. A better approach might have been to raise the safety concerns through formal channels earlier, before any personal conflict arose.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case shows that even where an employee has raised genuine concerns, the tribunal will look closely at the sequence of events. If a dismissal follows a personal dispute, the whistleblowing claim may fail. It also highlights that interim relief – which was granted here – is decided on a lower threshold than the final hearing. A successful interim application does not guarantee success at trial.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal remedy includes £4,000 for loss of company car despite new job
A former employee with two years' service won £2,575.34 in unfair dismissal compensation after losing his company car, even though he found a higher-paying job. The tribunal awarded £4,000 for the car benefit, reduced by 75% for contributory fault.
Agency worker's whistleblowing claim fails: tribunal says she was not an employee
A scientist who worked for the UK Health Security Agency via an umbrella company was not an employee, the tribunal ruled, striking out her claim for automatically unfair dismissal over protected disclosures.
Security guard with 7 weeks' service wins unpaid wages but loses whistleblowing claim
A security guard who complained about dirty high-vis vests and lack of rest breaks during the pandemic was not automatically unfairly dismissed, but was awarded £541.40 in unpaid wages.
Interim relief denied: whistleblower claim fails for fixed-term civil servant
A senior civil servant who claimed his fixed-term contract was not renewed because of whistleblowing disclosures has lost his bid for interim relief. The tribunal found no 'pretty good chance' he would win at a final hearing.