When Unichef was first set up our aim was to ensure a different type of Union to that of any other. This also applies to our rules on transparency and how the National Chefs Union is ran and organised.

Although the day to day operations are conducted by the Executive He/she is held accountable by independently appointed Directors who oversee the work, accounts and well management of the Union.

Full members have the right to challenge and question the way Unichef conducts the Union and have the right to complain through the directors, who are the eyes and ears of our members and are there to see that members rights are upheld and complaints dealt swiftly and fairly.

Whilst the Union continues to grow and flourish, how we attend to the issues of accountability and transparency will become more important and the Union must and always be seen to be accountable to its members in every respect.

Sections within our written constitution (Official Union Rules) provide ample reassurance of that accountability whilst maintaining the balance of security from those wishing to infringe on that constitution.

In all, members can be assured that their rights to accountability and quality of governance is set within the constitution and that the Union will continue to remain accountable and transparent at all times.

From time to time, we all experience an issue at work, sometimes its small and sometimes it’s beyond our scope and we need advice on moving forward.

Unichef is here to help in any way we can but often its best to do a bit of homework first before you contact us so that you save us time in explaining things in detail.

There are many links on our homepage that can give you very accurate help and advice before you feel the need to contact your Union.

Since the pandemic, Unichef still runs on a small team of support staff and it helps us enormously if we are not on telephone calls all day, therefor SMS is a huge part of our routine and helps us get to issues much more quickly.

If you are emailing us, that’s fine but please DO NOT send us documentation or try to explain what your issues is. It is much better and quicker if you let us ask the precise questions so that we can filter your grievance accordingly and escalate it quickly if necessary. 99% of all messages are answered within 24 hours, often quicker if your a member.

Most queries that we get can be sorted easily and quickly and having such a filter system means that we can spend more time on more serious matters. 

You will always find us willing, friendly and supportive but please remember, we are also chefs and we call it the way it is, we have mountains of experience and if you’re in the wrong we will let you know, (as gently as we can).

Here is a simple guide to help you.

Firstly,visit the links and helplines below,they are often a great source of information which will help you decide how you deal with your issue.

Next,contact us using the buttons at the bottom of this and every webpage.Please DO NOT send us any documentation at this stage,when we need it we will ask for it.

Next,in the contact box tell us very simply what you issue is IE " I have been dismissed "I have been bullied "etc.

Once we have your contact we will acknowledge your issue and make arrangements with you to discuss things in more detail.This will be through SMS or email only at this stage.

Advice Lines
https://www.acas.org.uk/advice

https://landaulaw.co.uk/

https://www.advicenow.org.uk/

A Landmark Victory for Justice: Unichef Stands With Chef Victoria Barker

Unichef is proud to share the news of a significant and hard-fought victory in the case of Victoria Barker, who has successfully proven she was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed from her role as a chef at Grange Lea Care Home.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/685e5b5ee44db4975be00b1c/Victoria_Barker_-vs-_Orange_Care-Grange_Lea_Ltd_-_1402352.2024_-_Judgment.pdf

This outcome was not simply a legal win; it was an act of restored dignity and recognition of truth.

Victoria had served the organisation for five years, with an exemplary record and consistent praise for her skill, dedication, and professionalism. During the hearing, both her former employer and line manager described her as a “fantastic chef” and openly acknowledged that her talent and reliability had been pivotal to the running of the kitchen. Yet despite this, she was dismissed in a process that fell far below lawful and fair standards.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to carry out any meaningful or fair investigation and denied Victoria the procedural rights that every employee is entitled to. In recognition of these failings, the Tribunal imposed the maximum 25% penalty uplift under the ACAS Code, a measure reserved only for the clearest and most serious departures from fair conduct.

Victoria’s dismissal was not justifiable, and the Tribunal recognised that.

But the significance of this case goes beyond the legal findings. Victoria’s journey has been one of courage, resilience, and determination. She endured not only the emotional strain of losing her position and her professional identity, but also the stigma and stress that followed. Where many would have felt pressured into silence, Victoria insisted on standing up — both for herself and for every chef who has been treated without fairness, understanding or respect.

It takes enormous bravery to confront injustice when you are already struggling. Victoria did exactly that.

Unichef stood with Victoria from the beginning. We prepared the case, we challenged the employer’s assertions, we exposed the failures in process, and we remained present at every stage. This outcome demonstrates the difference that strong, independent, specialist representation makes. We are not a passive membership organisation. We are a voice, a shield, and when necessary — a force.

This case sends a clear message to the hospitality and care sectors:

Chefs are professionals.
They deserve respect.
They deserve lawful treatment.
And they deserve fair process.

Where these standards are ignored, Unichef will act, and we will continue to act — decisively, publicly, and without compromise.

Victoria’s victory now stands as an example to others who have been mistreated or dismissed without justification. It shows what can be achieved when a worker refuses to be silenced, and when a union stands behind them without hesitation.

To Victoria:
Your courage has changed more than your own story.
You have helped change the industry.
You have shown that dignity is worth defending.
And we are honoured to have stood with you.

This is not just your victory —
it is ours, together.

Unichef – The National Chefs Union CIC
Defending chefs.
Strengthening our profession.
Changing the culture of kitchens for the better.

OMG, still getting chefs telling us they are working 60,70 plus hours for a single salaried pay each month!

Wow, this HAS to stop. Be strong and put your foot down on this right now. If you are reading this, please read on. It's a clear guide to what you should be earning.If you are not being paid for those extra hours, then you are being screwed, and you need to do something about it fast.

Remember, this just doesn't just affect your monthly wage, it also affects your holiday pay and pension entitlements.

 

What is the Working Time Directive?

The Working Time Directive is a law that sets rules to protect workers' health and safety by limiting how much they can work.

🏴‍☠️ UK Position (2025) – What are the main rules?

1. 48-hour limit
   • You can’t be forced to work more than 48 hours per week (on average), unless you choose to opt out.
2. Opt-out
   • You can choose to work more than 48 hours by signing a form.(it does not mean you work extra hours for the same pay)
   • You can’t be forced to sign it.
   • You can cancel the opt-out later by giving notice.
3. Rest breaks
   • 20-minute break if your shift is over 6 hours.
   • 11 hours rest between working days.
   • 1 day off per week (or 2 days off every 2 weeks).
4. Paid holiday
   • You get at least 5.6 weeks’ paid holiday per year (that’s 28 days if you work 5 days a week).

⚠️ Key Point:

The WTD is about limiting your hours and giving you rest –
It does not say you work for free after 48 hours!
You must be paid for every hour worked, even if you sign the opt-out.

❌ Common Myth:

“If you sign the Working Time Directive (WTD) opt-out, you agree to work as many hours as needed for a set salary — no extra pay.”

✅ The Truth:

Signing a WTD opt-out only removes the 48-hour weekly limit. It ONLY means that you agree to work MORE than 48hours, NOT 50,60,70 plus hours for the same salary.

It does NOT:

• Remove your right to be paid for every hour you work
• Mean your employer can make you work open-ended hours with no limit
• Override the National Minimum Wage law
• Cancel out your contractual rights

📌 Example:

Let’s say:

• You’re contracted for 45 hours at £12/hour → that’s £540/week.
• You work 75 hours, and you’ve signed the WTD opt-out.
• You must still be paid for the extra 30 hours unless your contract clearly includes them and you’re still earning at least minimum wage across all hours worked.

⚠️ Risk for Employers:

If they:

• Pay a flat salary
• Expect open-ended hours
• Don’t pay for extra time
• And that brings pay below minimum wage

→ They could be breaking the law. HMRC can investigate. Workers can claim unlawful deduction of wages or minimum wage breaches.

🧾 Summary:

An Open Letter to Head Chefs: Leadership, Responsibility, and the Legal Duty to Protect Your Team

Dear Head Chef,

We write to you as a leader. A figure of authority, influence, and example in one of the most demanding professions in the UK.

With that role comes enormous responsibility — not just for the quality of your kitchen’s food, but for the welfare of the people who prepare it.

It has come to our attention that an increasing number of kitchen workers — chefs, KPs, and other hospitality staff — are experiencing bullying, intimidation, and harassment. In many cases, these behaviours are either carried out or enabled by those in senior positions.

This letter is a clear and direct reminder: you have a legal and moral duty to protect your staff.

Your Role Is Not Just Culinary — It Is Legal

As Head Chef, you are not exempt from employment law. Your position gives you heightened accountability. You are expected to know better — and to do better.

If you are:

• Shouting, swearing, or humiliating junior staff

• Belittling, excluding, or ignoring team members

• Creating a culture of fear, anxiety, or silence

• Allowing others to bully or harass without consequence

Then you are not leading — you are abusing your authority.

The Law Is Clear:

• Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, you have a duty to protect your team from both physical and psychological harm. Bullying and intimidation breach this duty.

• Under the Equality Act 2010, you must not harass or discriminate against staff based on age, race, sex, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics.

• Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, repeated or threatening behaviour can result in civil claims or criminal prosecution.

“Kitchen culture” is not a defence. The law does not recognise tradition over accountability.

This Is Your Warning

Unichef supports all hospitality workers who face bullying, harassment, or abuse — even when they are not yet ready to raise a formal grievance. We act as a shield for those who feel powerless or afraid.

If we become aware of abusive behaviour from a Head Chef, we will support the victims. We will document, escalate, and act.

You may face:

• Formal grievance proceedings

• Tribunal or civil claims

• Disciplinary action

• Reputational damage

• Staff resignation or refusal to work under you

Leadership Means Responsibility

Your kitchen reflects the standard you set.
Respect is not weakness. Discipline is not cruelty. Fear is not leadership.

If you recognise your behaviour in this letter, now is the time to change.
Before others change it for you.

Your actions affect real people with real lives.
You are being watched — and your team deserves better.

We urge you to lead with professionalism, integrity, and humanity.

Sincerely,
Unichef – The National Chefs Union
Standing for dignity, safety, and respect in every kitchen.

Company phoenixing, also known as phoenixing or phoenix companies, refers to the practice where a company is deliberately wound up to avoid liabilities, only for its business operations to be resumed by a new company often controlled by the same directors. While this tactic is sometimes lawful, it can have significant negative effects on employees, creditors, and employment tribunal claims. In employment matters, phoenixing can be used to avoid paying wages, redundancy, and employment tribunal awards, leaving workers in a vulnerable position.

How Phoenixing Affects Workers

When a company goes into liquidation and re-emerges under a new name, employees may find themselves:

• Unpaid for work already done

• Unable to recover redundancy payments, notice pay, or holiday pay

• Struggling to enforce tribunal awards for unfair dismissal or discrimination

• Forced to reapply for jobs with the new entity, often on worse terms

Phoenixing and Employment Tribunals

A significant challenge for workers is that once a company is liquidated, it may no longer exist as a legal entity, meaning employment tribunal claims against it cannot proceed. If the new company takes over the business but refuses to recognise previous liabilities, workers may have no immediate recourse.

However, legal remedies exist. Employees can:

1. Claim from the National Insurance Fund (NIF): If an employer becomes insolvent, employees may claim for redundancy pay, unpaid wages, and notice pay through the UK government’s Redundancy Payments Service.

2. Argue TUPE applies: If the new company is deemed a "successor" to the old one, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) may apply, protecting workers' employment rights.

3. Lift the Corporate Veil: In some cases, courts have allowed claims against directors personally for wrongful conduct.

Legal Cases on Phoenixing and Wrongful Misappropriation

Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Rahman & Ors [2019] EWHC 2273 (Ch)

This case involved directors who were disqualified after being found guilty of abusing the phoenixing process by liquidating their company and setting up a nearly identical business to avoid paying debts, including wages and tribunal awards.

Grays Timber Products Ltd v HMRC [2010] UKSC 4

Although a tax-related case, it demonstrated how directors can be held liable when a company is deliberately collapsed to avoid obligations.

Antuzis v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 843 (QB)

In this case, directors were held personally liable for failing to pay workers, showing that courts may pierce the corporate veil when phoenixing is used to exploit employees.

Regulatory Responses to Phoenixing

The UK government has tightened regulations to address abusive phoenixing practices, including:

• The Insolvency Act 1986 (s.216 and s.217) – Restricts directors of a liquidated company from being involved in a similar-named business without court approval.

• Directors Disqualification Act 1986 – Allows the disqualification of directors who abuse phoenixing.

• Finance Act 2020 – Introduced measures to prevent tax avoidance through phoenixing, making directors personally liable in some cases.

Conclusion

Phoenixing remains a major issue for workers who lose wages and tribunal awards due to the deliberate misuse of insolvency laws. However, legal protections exist, and tribunals may still hold directors accountable. Employees affected by Phoenixing should seek legal or Union advice and explore avenues such as claims against the new company, government compensation schemes, and director liability.

As the UK government continues to crack down on this practice, workers should remain aware of their rights and challenge unfair business tactics that seek to exploit insolvency laws.

We are in the middle of an issue where a Chef has been accused of Gross negligence over not correctly filling in the kitchen Allergen Matrix, but what exactly is Gross Negligence?

All chefs should check their contracts to see if this could be a reason for dismissal. Essentially an employer uses it when they can’t use any other form of dismissal and they want rid of the employer quickly, but few employers ( and even fewer chefs ) really understand the complications of this dismissal and the legal issues it raises.

Proving Gross Negligence is extremely complex, and unless that negligence is obvious ( perhaps a chef left a fryer on all night,  leading to a fire ) then proving just how Gross ( extreme/serious ) that is can get bogged down in legal arguments.

Negligence and Gross Negligence are in a lot of people's contracts and is a growing trend amongst Employers without them knowing or realising it and chefs should now examine their contracts and handbooks and contact their Union or employer for a definition of that clause and advice.
 

So, we have a tribunal date for this extraordinary case. As you recall it's all about a chef who is accused of not following Allergen instructions and completing the Maxtrix that is within her kitchen. and she was dismissed for this, however, the case becomes much more complicated as we now explain.

She was dismissed for Gross Negligence and this is extremely unusual and difficult to prove ( as the employer is finding out )and essentially is at the center of the argument. This case could well set a precedent and become historical as dismissal for allergen non-compliance is rare and is normally dealt with as a performance issue.

The Employer has failed to produce any relevant evidence and also failed to check that the chef was suitably qualified to perform the tasks that were asked of her. The employer has also failed to carry out the due procedure in not investigating the matter correctly and not allowing the chef to put her case, as well as not exploring other possible sanctions instead of dismissal.

So this is a very complicated and important case for Unichef and our first case of Gross Negligence and our first case of a triple charge of Wrongful Dismissal, Unfair Dismissal, and an unusual charge of Anticipatory Dismissal when he wrote to her suggesting she leave.

This is a very important case for many reasons and we have put an incredible amount of work into it, but we are hugely confident that we have a strong case in which to defend our member.

We have another chance to mediate this out with ACAS before the Court date and hopefully, the Employer will see sense and the massive case we have put up. Sadly, common sense and employers don't always go hand in hand.
 

Two recent cases in the Unichef office have highlighted the growing use of surveillance in kitchens so we thought we would take this opportunity of inform you more on the subject.

Firstly is it legal to have CCTV inside your kitchen?

The simple answer is yes,HOWEVER…

There is a massive range of rules that govern its use and its these rules that employers tend to ignore.  They involve rules on the Data Protection Act and also The Human Rights Act.The reasons why they are installed and used are strictly enshrined in these acts and the penalties for ignoring their governance can be hugely damaging to both the employee and the employer.

Installing CCTV on premises is a very serious thing to do and should never be taken lightly. There is plenty of evidence and reports that show that long-term use of CCTV in enclosed spaces can have a psychological and physical effect on employees.

The long-term use of surveillance can have serious consequences on the employee and should never be used without consultation with the employee and guidance from The Information Commissioner.

Without a doubt, constant use of CCTC in any one place could be a Violation of your Humans Rights and should be investigated and complained against.

The uses and benefits of CCTV are seldom of any major significance and are rarely if ever used in the Employment Tribunal, and should never be used in evidence against someone unless there is clear and indisputable evidence of a crime.

Unichef have long fought against Cameras in kitchens. We see little point or justification and the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages and we deplore their use if the only reason is that the employer is paranoid about his staff and wants to “keep an eye” on them??

Say NO to CCTV..it is your human right.

 

Photo by

Juan Ignacio Rodriguez Moronta

At long last the Workers Protection Act has finally come into force and will herald a new chapter in our industry.

For so many years now Unichef has fought against the disease of Sexual Harassment that has plagued Hospitality.In no other field of work or profession is harassment more prevalent than in Catering and it's one of the main causes of poor staff retention and engagement.

Ever since I was an apprentice back in 1974 women has been the subject of unwanted sexual attention and harassment to the point where sadly it just became "normalised" and in 2015 when we started Unichef it became our single core issue and a campaign we started and have watched gather and has now become law.

We have always maintained that the ONLY way to stop harassment kitchen was to legislate against it and now we have that vital piece of law that at last pushes doubt about what is harassment and who should be responsible into a much clearer picture.These definitions are clearly set out by ACAS as being..
 

• making sexual remarks about someone's body, clothing or appearance
• asking questions about someone's sex life
• telling sexually offensive jokes
• making sexual comments or jokes about someone's sexual orientation or gender reassignment
• displaying or sharing pornographic or sexual images, or other sexual content
• touching someone against their will, for example hugging them
• sexual assault or rape
  
  Finally now the onus is upon Companies, managers and Head chefs to police and be "proactive " against harassment in the workplace and finally those that suffer abuse can now see that the law is on their side and have that just support.
  
  Harassment at work is vile,unnecessary and unproductive,it has nothing to do with our profession and we now must all rise to the challenge and stamp it out once and for all.

At last some good news for our industry and our members.

The Good Work Plan that we told you about in 2020 is finally about to come to fruition with next month's announcements of the final instalments of the revolution in working practices.

Since day one of Unichefs conception we have fought hard to abolish split shifts and at last we now have concrete plans from the government for the introduction of two-sided flexible working. An end to split shifts and zero-hour contracts, and also an end to employers cutting shifts at short notice.

No longer will your employer be able to demand split shift working and cut your hours in the middle of a shift, they will also be required to offer “fixed” hourly contracts well as a statutory requirement to inform you of your rights to join a Union.

Other plans are a new 6-month rest period before you apply for unfair dismissal ( instead of 3 months ) and a shortened period of qualification for unfair dismissal ( currently 2 years ) as well as changes to harassment and discrimination laws.

We haven’t quite got all we wanted, there is still work to do on “copy and paste” contracts, Entity identification (the name on your contract), and also penalties for pay mistakes.

However the mood within the government is now ready for these changes and we will keep battling to make our industry better and safer for our chefs, so watch this space.

Who is my employer?

When is your employer NOT your employer? This question is becoming increasingly common. You may think it does not have any implications at all but a recent case highlights just what we mean. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66aa38b8a3c2a28abb50dae6/Mr_D_Vogiazinos_v_Sola_Fine_Dining_Limited_-_2201528-2024.pdf

In the case of Michelin starred chef Victor Garvey who hired our member to work at his premises in Soho London and he continued to work for Garvey at those premises for many years, working with Garvey to achieve his first Michelin Star at the Sola Restaurant.

However unbeknown to our member he was not technically employed by Garvey but by the limited company owned by his girlfriend.  The company paid Garvey’s employees on his behalf therefore relieving him of any legal responsibility but this was never explained to any of his staff.

When our member was dismissed unfairly Garvey denied any employer responsibility even though he had hired and fired on the company’s behalf.
The case was found against Sola Fine Dining Ltd and has since been ordered to pay more than £15000 in compensation.Garvey claims he was not a Director of SFDL had had no responsibility even though all of his chefs and staff were paid by a company managed by his girlfriend/partner Ashley Yates.

The case highlights the growing issue of “entity or Employer identification” and is a serious concern within the industry. This is when an employer deliberately sets out to confuse, deceive and misrepresent their employees by offloading their legal responsibilities to a shell company. This despicable practice is more common than even we realised and we ask all Chefs to check their contracts and to find out just who they are actually employed by, often they will be shocked to find that it’s not the people they are working for.

If the company on your contract is different in any respect to the one on your payslip or if they bear no relation to who you actually work for then alarm bells should be ringing out.

For example..If you work for the Dog and Duck pub but you are paid by the Dog and Duck Catering ltd who have no say in the running of the pub or its business then you have a problem if the owners and managers of the pub are not Directors of that Limited Company but only use it to pay your wages.

Chefs beware please,  this vile practice is becoming more and more and we need you all to be vigilant and stand up where you see it happening.

Can Your Employment Be Terminated For Posting On Social Media?

Many of us use Social Media every day and most of the time there are no repercussions for sharing an article on a website or posting a comment, for example. However, employee’s should be aware that the use of Social Media can sometimes result in disciplinary action, which can result in a Gross Misconduct dismissal. This is the case even if you were using Social Media outside of work.

Social Media Policy

It is recommended that employers have a Social Media policy and that this is introduced to the workforce. By doing so this will help set out what behaviour could constitute Gross Misconduct and the sanctions available to the employer. However, whilst it is recommended that an employer set out a comprehensive Social Media policy, even without one, certain action online could still result in disciplinary action.

How Can Social Media Result In Gross Misconduct?

Gross Misconduct is described as conduct which undermines the relationship of trust and confidence to entitle the employer to no longer retain the employee in their employment. The ACAS Code also sets out the meaning of Gross Misconduct.

“Some acts termed gross misconduct, are so serious in themselves or have such serious consequences that they may call for dismissal without notice for a first offence. But a fair disciplinary process should always be followed, before dismissing for gross misconduct.”

Gross Misconduct can therefore extend to an employee’s use of Social Media, if the employer reasonably considers the employee has engaged in conduct which could cause a loss of reputation to the business.

Acceptable Behaviour and Loss of Reputation

An employer has the right not to suffer a loss of reputation, by an employee’s actions, and so anything an employee posts on Social Media, which negatively impacts the employer’s reputation, could result in a disciplinary action leading to dismissal.

How Should Your Employer React?

It is expected for the employer to assess the seriousness of the Social Media activity. The employer should act promptly but also fairly. They can do this by following their own internal disciplinary procedure, or at the very least, in accordance with the ACAS Code on Disciplinaries and Grievances 2009.

It would be expected for the employer to identify whether the Social Media activity was directly linked to the business and whether the activity could have reasonably damaged the business’s reputation. The question will be determined on a case-by-case basis and depending on the findings, the employer should then consider whether the Social Media activity warrants dismissal.

Pitfalls To Be Mindful Of

It is strongly recommended you do not engage with Social Media which references your employer in what could be perceived a negative light.

THINK before you post: –

• Could your Social Media activity be considered sufficiently serious? Review what you are doing and if you feel your actions could reasonably damage your employer’s reputation, you should not engage in this activity.
• You may be feeling hot headed and think you’ll post just one negative comment and because it is only one no action will be taken against you. This is wrong. If your post is deemed to be very offensive, despite it only having happened once, this could still be sufficient for dismissal.
• You may have posted an offensive comment some time ago and thought that no action can now be taken against you. However, there is no timescale on how old the post is for an employer to address it. If your employer happens to find the post some years later this could still warrant a dismissal.
• Do not expect your Social Media post to be private. Yes, you can increase your privacy settings but there is no guarantee that this will work. Take for example an employee making a series of negative posts about the company they work for on a Social Media platform. On the surface, the employee may believe there is no link between their profile and their employment. However, Social Media is not often a private space, or it may be that the employee is friends with a colleague or supplier of the employer. It is therefore likely that such a post could be found.

Lately, we have a series of members complaints all involving TOIL.( Time off in Lieu) With members wishing to know their legal rights revolving around time owing to them though overtime worked.

The answer is quite simple…you have almost NO rights at all where TOIL is concerned as it is a “gentleman’s” agreement between the employer and employee and there are currently no laws that govern TOIL, it is in fact a civil contact between 2 parties, difficult and expensive to prove in court.

Occasionally there may be a written agreement but even then it can get quite complex and often you will find that the employer will dig in their heels, and still refuse you the time off that you are owed, and there is little you can do about it.

So what is the answer to TOIL?

TOIL works fine when it suits BOTH parties and there is an honesty between you but be very very weary of complex time controlled systems that monitor each and every hour that you work over your time and NEVER be in position where substantial amounts of time are ever owed to you or enter into a contract where TOIL is closely monitored.

Our advice will always be this. Stay in control of what is owed to you in TOIL and never be owed more than your kitchen can easily give you back without employing another chef to do your job.

TOIL is one of the few things that is still unregulated so please be very careful with what is owed to you.

In 2021 we heralded the Government’s plan to upgrade much of the Current Employment Legislation.

The Good Work Plan was the brainchild of Mathew Taylor and out of almost 50 Recommendations the current Conservative government had accepted the vast majority of them.

Sadly because of the Pandemic and the slow return to Preliminary pace much of this has been delayed.

However the good news is that a whole range of draft legislation is going though Parliament as we speak and whilst we still have along way to go there is some great news for those who always said nothing ever changes in our profession.

Here is a brief look at some of the changes that will affect chefs in the UK.

Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill

A Private Members’ Bill to give workers and agency workers the right to request more predictable terms and conditions of work.

The Bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons and is due to be considered by the House of Lords shortly. It is being backed by the Government, so is likely to come into effect at some point if that remains the case.

This is MASSIVE for the Industry and will give those on Zero-hour Contracts may now have the right to be given a a more predictable contract according to their history of work. In other words, if a after a period of time (to be determined) you have worked standard 20-40-hour week (or applicable) you will be able to request a predictable contract based of your history of work. The new law will also allow you to continue on a Zero option if so preferred.

This will also apply to those shifts that traditionally get cut in the middle of a shift due to lack of business, in future if your rostered for 8 hours your employer must honour that also unless you have a flexible arrangement that adds up to your contracted hours at the end of the week.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill
 

Broadly speaking, the Worker Protection Bill intends to:Re-introduce the duty to protect employees from third-party harassment, and impose a positive duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, giving the Tribunal powers to uplift compensation by 25 per cent where employers fail to do so.

This Bill will be a huge deterrent to those employers who still turn a blind eye to sexual harassment. It will effectively allow tribunals to increase the any compensation award by a massive 25% .This also means that employers will be more likely to settle “out of court” if they feel that a Tribunal will punish them even further.

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

The Bill aims to give employees and other workers greater flexibility by having the right to request variations to particular terms and conditions of employment. The main change proposed is for the right to request flexible working to become a day one right, removing the current 26-week qualifying period.

Although some changes have been made to this Bill it now means that workers will have the right (from day 1) to a request flexible work pattern as opposed to the current 26 week lead in period. However, it only gives you the right to request and not the “right to have “
It is a very contentious Bill and will go through more changes and amendments before it is finalised.

Miscarriage Leave Bill 

The Bill aims to give three days of statutory paid leave to employees who have experienced miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or molar pregnancy before 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Wonderful news for those women who go through the distress of losing a baby, its not a huge win but it’s a good start.

Work Grievances

From time to time, we all experience an issue at work, sometimes its small and sometimes it’s beyond our scope and we need advice on moving forward.

Unichef is here to help in any way we can but often its best to do a bit of homework first before you contact us so that you save us time in explaining things in detail.

There are many links on our homepage that can give you very accurate help and advice before you feel the need to contact your Union.

Since the pandemic, Unichef still runs on a small team of support staff and it helps us enormously if we are not on telephone calls all day, therefor we SMS is a huge part of our routine and this helps us get quicker to your issues.

If you are emailing us, that’s fine but please NEVER send us documentation or try to explain what your issue is. It is much better and quicker if you let us ask the precise questions so that we can filter your grievance accordingly and escalate it quickly if necessary. 99% of all messages are answered within 24 hours, often sooner.

Most queries that we get can be sorted easily and quickly and having such a filter system means that we can spend more time on more serious matters. 

You will always find us willing, friendly and supportive but please remember, we are also chefs and we call it the way it is, we have mountains of experience and if you’re in the wrong we will let you know, (as gently as we can).

Q: who owns Unichef?
A: if you are member reading this then you do? That's right, every member of Unichef owns a unique part of this very special Union, you are a member for life and your share in it remains until you resign.

Q: Can I sell my share?
A: No, the share (stake holding) is unique to you and cannot be transferred

Q: who is the boss of Unichef
A: Our current Executive Director is Brian Mcelderry an experienced International Executive Chef and businessman.

Q: What does he do?
A: Brian is there to ensure that Unichef stays financially sound and adheres to the Constitution (bible) of its members.

Q: Who does he answer to?
A: He is in charge of all day to day matters but answers to the Board of Directors who are the Members Representatives.

Q: Can Unichef help me with my work issues?
A: Of course, we have experienced councillors who can support you or direct you to the appropriate support network.

Q: Can Unichef be with me at a disciplinary hearing?
A: Unfortunately, no, but on most occasions (unless it is very serious) this isn’t needed or required as Union reps are normally there without involvement in the case. We can (if needed) attend remotely provided we have sufficient notice. As a case progresses, we may need to attend tribunals, court and case meetings but again this is rare.

Q: Can Unichef represent me in Disciplinary actions and Tribunals
A: Of course, we work just like a normal Union in many respects but with some important differences.

Q: What are the differences between Unichef and a “normal” Union.
A: Unichef is 100% owned by its member, it’s totally independent and completely non-political, and it is solely for chefs, there is no other Union quite like it.

Q: what happens to the money members pay?
A: All our funding and spending is tightly controlled and is overseen by the Board of Directors and the Government Ombudsman who are the “eyes and ears” of the Members. Unichef is a “not for profit” organisation and its main aim is to inspire, support, and educate and give a voice to chefs in the UK. Most of the finance is spent on making sure we have good core structure to our Union that we always have sufficient funds to meet its expenses and obligations.  Thereafter the Directors have a say in how surplus funding (if any) can be spent on behalf of the members.

Q: What is a C.I.C?
A: Unichef is a Community Interest Company, similar to a Charity but without the restraints of a charity which allows us to work in the special way we do, it’s a mix between a charity and a business, ran as a Social Project but managed as a business.
 

This coming week Tuesday 24th October 2023, we see The National Chefs Union taking the very rare step of prosecuting an Employer.

Judgement is due in a case in London concerning Chef Matt,who is owed almost £2000 in wages and asked Unichef for help and support.This case has taken 2 years to bring to its conclusion,testimony of Chef Matt's determination and of the Unions strength and loyalty in sticking with such a difficult and long case.

The facts are simple,The chef did his work,there was no complaints,however the owner decided simply not to pay him because "he could" and the fact he has a history of doing this to other employees.

Unichef deplore "wages theft" it is a despicable act and is illegal.The case has not been contested,only the owner of the business wanted to make the chef suffer for as long as he could?

Narcissistic and nasty people like this are not fit to employ people and this week he will feel the strength and power of a dedicated Chefs Union,this week the industry also will wake up to the fact that the National Chefs Union will fight unfair and unjust cases to the end.

This case is the very reason we set up a Union,to protest,support and care for those chefs who cant defend themselves.Please wish Unichef and Chef Matt every best wishes.

It's really hard to believe but bullying and harassment still goes on in our kitchens today,even with many headline storey's and constant press attention,its almost as if Chefs seemed to think they are on another planet?

Well, that's actually more closer to the truth than you think?

It is difficult to fully understand in a short time, but there are two thesis papers and a great article that will help you understand the demographics that help create the toxic environment currently seen in kitchens. The first is by Prof Wendy Bloisi:

This examines the cultural reasons why chefs can bully, that historic abuse breeds more abuse and that commercial kitchens can be an extension of the chefs homelife, or social life. That in essence they often bring their issues and social values to work.  If they are brought up in a gang or street culture they often seek that same comfort in their workplace. In reality male dominated kitchens are very much an extension of the school playground where girls are excluded and the hierarchal system of inclusion takes place, the toughest survive and the weakest are bullied. Catering by and large is not an academic profession, Chefs are mostly kids off the street who will never amount to anything else through poor education and social deprivation, that includes  both me and Gordon Ramsay,  we are just kids off council estates who have a talent to cook.

The second is more recent and is from Cardiff University.  It examines the long held mystery of the “closed” culture within kitchens and just why chefs seen to believe they can do anything they want within their own domain.  The often isolated chef/chefs are never really included in the general work scene of many establishments hence the phrases “ back of house” and “front of house” which again isolates chefs into their own community and own world.  The thesis examines this “parallel universe” that chefs sink into,  believing that what they say and do is completely acceptable in their world.

Working in isolated environments enables culture of bullying among elite chefs, research finds - News - Cardiff University

WWW.CARDIFF.AC.UK

---

Separation from mainstream society paves way for verbal assaults and physical attacks

An interesting article also by David Simpson ( 2008 ) looks at the “Gordon Ramsay Effect”  and is really very much at the heart of what is happening today and I will talk more about this with you, but essentially what Ramsay did in glorifying abuse still affects those chefs who idolised him and were groomed into believing that kitchen had to be aggressive in order to function correctly. 

So, if you put all three together and then realise that our industry is largely un-unionised and poorly policed the you begin to understand just why this is still going on and why it is such a hot topic.

One of the biggest issues we have in modern catering is what to do when conflict occurs within the pressures of a busy kitchen.

These issues are very often the result of either the internal “self-drive” of the chef or chefs involved and, or the external pressures of time, standards and fatigue, and very often all these combine to create that “perfect storm”,

Sadly, these days many young and inexperienced managers who have not proceeded through the ranks of Hospitality do not know how to deflect these situations in order to carry on with the day’s work and inevitably end up losing a chef, either for that day or even permanently.

Without doubt the answer lies within the hands of the unit manager or Head Chef to be experienced and strong to be able to control and motivate their employees.

Recruitment and selection play such a big part also. Many Head chefs and managers concentrate on the practical side of an applicant but few seek to know the inner person they are interviewing.  Few ask for their views on bullying and discrimination or their attitudes to women in kitchens, yet much of the future conflict can be avoided by more careful selection of candidates.

If we focus more on the merits of the person and not solely on their cooking ability then we should be able to see the potential for conflict at that stage.  Personal references and careful scrutiny of candidates at this stage avoid the potential for conflict. Kitchen conflicts are often about personalities, with experience and careful man management these occasions need be rare.As new Chefs are so often interviewed by the Head Chef or Manager, they are rarely introduced to the team or brigade for their reactions, yet the team itself should have a major say in who they bring into their workplace environment, should they not?

This is a “people” business, yet our ability at times to understand and develop our senses about the people who we employ and work with can be quite shocking. When conflict occurs, we should question ourselves in asking could we, as Managers, chefs and colleagues have done more to avoid that incident, were we as much to blame?.

The National Chefs Union works tirelessly with many employers to educate our colleagues that the great majority of conflicts are solvable and that they often move forward through development and motivational leadership.

We must understand that nobody wishes these conflicts to occur and that there is normally a reason behind such incidents, we just need the will and experience to seek those reasons and prevent them from happening in the first place.

Recent events have shown to the media and outside world that a shocking environment exist inside of many UK kitchens. Yet within the industry none of this is of any surprise, such is the now systemic nature of workplace abuse within our sector.

Everyone is puzzled as to how and why this would be in a modern working environment but to analyse the matter one must appreciate the demographics of the workforce and the cultural changes that had enabled these vile practices to exist and thrive.

Professor Wendy Bloisi’s ground-breaking research into the background of bullying in commercial kitchens has acted as our Union’s bible for many years.  In her thesis she explains that social and economic factors bear heavily on the mainly un- academic platform of hospitality employees and namely chefs in kitchens who are mostly kids off the street who have a talent to cook but little else. Chefs are by and large are often seen as unskilled and problematic.

https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/54526643/FULL_TEXT.PDF

Those factors are born out when Chefs then bring their cultural ideologies and traits into an un-policed workplace where they are “safe” to bully and intimidate within their own peer group, without fear of retaliation, discipline or indeed prosecution.

If we then subscribe to the now widely held social belief that “abuse breeds abuse” whether it be in the home,  marriage or school, then also that must apply to the workplace also,  and some kitchens in particular, which can be no more than a “playground” for bully’s.

All of this has been ingrained into our workplace over the last 10-15 years by the “glorification” of kitchen abuse by chefs such as Gordon Ramsey and programs such as Hell’s Kitchen and the F Word. Ramsey himself came from an abusive background and strict culinary teaching and so that has perpetuated into his work. Those who idolise him copy his actions and believe that to be correct, normal and even "cool" and so it goes on, from generation to generation. Chef Ramsey may well be a reformed character but the damage has been done and will last for many years to come.

This “gladiatorial” display of bullying,  played out in front of millions, is now the main factor in just why “bullying and harassment has become systemic within UK kitchens. Many factors play there part in people who abuse such as lack of confidence, and self-esteem bit also those who bully and intimidate may have autistic traits and are often acting out a defense mechanism which is their way of self-protection.

Both Chefs,  and the wider public have now accepted this as how kitchens are ran and is without doubt the disease that has crept up upon us and has led to the now “normalisation” of abuse and harassment that we see today.

Change can only be affected by constant education of our peers, our employers, the media, and most importantly, our students coming into the industry.

Abuse is a plague within our sector that has to be stamped out by all who work within it. We are all part of a precious and special profession, a profession that cares for our clients but fails to care for those that work within it.  We can do better and we must do better.

We must learn from the past mistakes of others and make a conscious decision that as “professionals” we are sometimes not as professional as we should be and look to other professions that show us a better example of how to treat our colleagues.
 

Almost since the very early days of our Union, have we been warning of that the days of chefs being able to dominate, bully, harass and do as they please were numbered.

Few have heard of the term, Vicarious Liability, but along with chefs now having to be Pharmacists, Scientists and Mathematicians, you will now need to be Lawyers and be very much aware of the pitfalls of this often used but seldom explained rule of law.

Vicarious Liability is one of the two Laws of Civil Liability. The other, Direct Liability, is more often understood by chefs who understand that employers could be sued if someone is made ill by food kept in dangerous conditions or if they neglect health and safety laws etc. Vicarious Liability is the Employers responsibility for what their Employees say and do during the course of their work.

Whilst normally Employers cannot be held accountable for your direct actions, they can be made liable for failure to take the appropriate action to either stop future incidents or the chefs continued actions, and the ultimate way of guaranteeing this is to dismiss the accused chef through gross misconduct clauses in their contracts. But why exactly should they need to resort to such extreme measures?

It's simple, and yet so many fail to understand. The financial penalties for negligence on behalf of the Employer can now run into tens of thousands of pounds. If an employer fails to take decisive action over a complaint against the perpetrator, they stand accused of a lack due supervision in their legal Duty of Care to their employees, and indeed “turning a blind eye” can also apply to anyone in supervisory care, including Head Chefs. The action is indefensible, and Unions can do little about it so long as due process had be adhered to.

So severe can the penalties be that dismissal is often the only course of action that a company’s lawyers will recommend, its final and decisive and the company escapes further claims.

Chefs must also learn that their victims voice must be heard above all others and that because of the risk of Liability, employers must listen and support those who complain, not to do so may make them liable to further action ( from Unions such as ours ).So the accused’s word against someone else’s can be, and often is irrelevant. If the victim has a witness to what was said or done, the case is even more secure.

So those chefs that believe they are “indispensable”, that they are so good at their job that they can say and do as they like in “their kitchen “ need to wake up and smell the coffee…very quickly

The days of the most junior of staff members being able to take offence at what you say to them and see you on the dole are right here and happening right now and the cost of a loose tongue and a toxic attitude can be very, very costly.

Many reading this will be unaware, (as I was) about not only how difficult it can be being a chef with Asthma, but indeed just how dangerous it can be also.

The tragic death this year of 19-year-old Lauren Reid at work in her kitchen in Glasgow has truly shocked all of us into learning more about Asthma and how we can both support our colleagues’ and raise awareness of this terrible illness.

Of course, there are many causes and facets to Asthma and we are no experts, but we very much see Asthma as an increasing illness that seriously effects many Chefs in the UK and so Unichef has committed itself to bringing support, education, and awareness to the issue.

Little is known of the effects of cooking with Asthma but a recent study in Norway has highlighted the dangers of inhaling Carcinogens and Acrylamides and often much more simple, everyday substances such as flour can be now considered a dangerous substance for many, and this research shows a clear increased risk of respiratory problems for chefs and Bakers who continuously inhale fumes and dust/flour.

Indeed, there have been many study’s in the USA of the increased risks associated with long term use of Trans Fatty Acids and the effects of breathing hot cooking oil. We must now look at the long-term practises of frying and grilling which create such toxic atmospheres and begin to realise the effects they have not just on the closest worker but all those within the kitchen.

Together with Laurens mum, Elaine Cunningham, we are now, in honour of Lauren, taking Asthma much more seriously and will now include Asthma in our Chef Wellbeing programs in the future and discuss the issue with chefs in much the same way as we do Mental Health and other health subjects.

UK chefs and employers must all now begin to think and behave in a different way to the toxic environment that kitchens can be and look not only at the causes and effects of asthma but indeed look at preventing needless deaths such as Lauren Reid’s in the future by being more aware of the dangers and signs of distress.

There is lots we can all do, and in Laurens name we need to start right now.

Cooking fumes can create respiratory problems for chefs

SCIENCENORWAY.NO

---

Cooks live less long on average than people in most other occupational groups. Changes in their working environment could result in better health for many.

Asthma UK | Homepage

WWW.ASTHMA.ORG.UK

---

 

Petition · Glasgow city council : #Lauren’slaw-asthma awareness · Change.org

WWW.CHANGE.ORG

---

#Lauren’slaw-asthma awareness

From time to time in catering, something comes along that revolutionises the way we work. You can think of things like Maltodextrin or even Rational Ovens, but something much more important is about to change the way we work in this industry forever.

“Onesided Flexibility” is soon to become outlawed in catering and heralds a change in the relationship between Employer and Employee of seismic proportions, but what exactly is Onesided Flexibility?

In short, it’s a working relationship that sees the benefit mainly for the Employer, onesided. The obvious example in our profession would be Split Shifts. This Victorian practice of work where your entire day is spent on work, but you are only paid for the hours you do, or even worse still the abhorrent practise of AFD shifts of 12hrs plus, these practices save the employer money but abuses our social and mental welfare.

Soon both of these practises will cease, and Employers will be forced to realise that shifts MUST benefit both sides in order to create a good working relationship. There will also be adjustments to Zero Hours working and Employers will soon have to adjust their contracts to ensure that you have a balanced work schedule with a minimum set day/hour rota pattern for both parties to adhere to.

The vile practice of cutting shifts without notice or even worse in the middle of a shift when things become slow will also be abolished as the government have recognised the importance of workers being able to sustain rent and a mortgage and so must be able to rely on a dependable work structure.

There will also be a national system of whistleblowing and reporting so that employees will, for the first time ever, be able to deal with issues directly and in confidence.

Employers must stop exploiting chefs in the way they have for many decades. The Government’s vision of a fairer way of working in partnership with Employees must now be embraced by all and The National Chefs Union will be playing a big part in shaping that future.

The Pandemic has made everyone realise that the system of work in Catering is broken and that if we are to attract a better, fitter workforce then we need to attack the core issues of exploitation within our profession.

In the very near future we need to offer our young chefs, a brighter, safer, and more rewarding career than at present. A career free from intimidation and exploitation, a career that shows the best of what we can do, with time to spend with our friends and family, a career that is caring of its workforce and a career that is secure and forward thinking.

All of this is possible and within our reach. The Good Work Plan will ensure a fairer, decent way of working for all of us in the very near future.

 

Many have heard of terms such as subconscious sexism, racism, and ageism. Those inner most thoughts that we rarely see come to the surface but are often in the backs of people’s minds.

Indeed, our actions, even with the best of intentions are now considered as our true feelings. The theory behind this being that if we say or do something that is now socially unacceptable even though we adamantly deny such thoughts then it is our subconscious feelings coming forward, in fact our “true selves”

This theory is then echoed into the handbooks of many employers, governed by overzealous HR consultants who in fear of litigation cover their employers by submitting to this theory.

So then, that must surely give way to the actions of employers also?

Is how they behave and act towards their employees often an indication of subconscious behaviour and is the practice of inhuman and socially unacceptable work pattens just subconscious exploitation?

Isn’t it time that acts such as 12-14-hour shifts, constant weekend working, all day long shifts and unpaid tasks can now be seen as exploitation even though we have accepted such conditions for many years.

Perhaps now is the moment to wake up and realise that when we are asked to give more than we are paid for on the grounds of “duty” or “teamwork” then this is simply the subconscious action of an exploitative employer or manager.

Should we all now be aware that going that extra mile or doing that extra shift, is just guilt tripping us into free labour and that we should now stand firm on the exploitation that is systemic is catering, and in reality hasn't it always been that way since our very first day in catering and isn't Contracted Hours simply the epitome of exploitation?

If the Pandemic has taught us one thing it is surely that all employees are disposable, we are asked to “take one for the team” but has the team ever taken one for us?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/766187/good-work-plan-printready.pdf