Brian

Quite an astonishing Tribunal decision in the case of a Job candidate who was denied the position simply because the management didn't think she would "fit in " with the team spirit? The Judge in question decided that if an applicant doesn't fit the profile currently enjoyed within an establishment, then the hirer has the right to refuse an application,which leads to all sorts of issues. For example,if the team are generally all Geordies, supporting Newcastle United,the hirer now has the right to exclude all Sunderland applicants, and so the list goes on, purely on the basis that they could cause "disharmony" within the establishment. This is a remarkably bold decision, and we expect an appeal. However, if it stands, you can look forward to advertisements excluding various types of chefs who the propriator feels would bring disharmony to the team by simply supporting another football club or a different culture to the one present. Another example would be if the kitchen in question is dominated by Heavy Metal devotees, candidates could now be vetted to see what music they prefer, what football team they support or even if they smoke, the list goes on. This is a hugely dangerous precedent,and one I'm sure will cause great debate. Does being an AC/DC fan or being an Arsenal supporter now come before your ability to cook ? Denying someone a job over football allegiances is ‘perfectly lawful’ UK.NEWS.YAHOO.COM Football fans can be legally denied jobs if current staff support a rival team, a judge has ruled.

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? 48-hour limit You can’t be forced to work more than 48 hours per week (on average), unless you choose to opt out. 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. 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). 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: Myth Truth Opt-out = work all hours for salary ❌ No, you must still be paid fairly Opt-out = unpaid overtime ❌ No, pay is still owed unless contractually agreed and legal Opt-out = no rest or holidays ❌ No, rest breaks and holidays still apply

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.

The Black Forest case has been decided, and our chef won her case hands down, in a massive victory. The Court decided that she had been "substantively" unfairly dismissed and that a second charge of Wrongful Dismissal was also upheld. We are hugely delighted for our chef Victoria Barker, who now stands to gain a substantial compensation award when we have the remedy hearing in September. The case has highlighted many issues with the lack of training and qualifications needed to ensure good allergen practice. During the case, we have seen Unichef vocal to both the local EHO and the FSA over the lack of transparency in Allergen responsibility. The Employer had held that the Chef had sole responsibility In recording allergen information and ensuring allergen safety. Unichef fought this vigorously, knowing that a part-time chef could not be held responsible for what happened during her absence from the workplace and that the line management was indeed the custodial guardians of all health and safety systems and practices within the unit. Simply passing the buck was never acceptable. We did everything possible to mediate with the Employer. Still, he refused to see reason and the impossible odds against him winning the case, once again, pride and sexist ignorance overtook common sense. We also had the pleasure of winning against the toughest of all HR solution companies, Peninsular, who dominate our industry with HR advice and protection to employers at high cost. This has been a very long and exhausting case, which has tested Unichef to its fullest. A year's work of meticulous planning has brought success on a massive scale, with the judge fully vindicating Chef Victoria on every count. The Employer, Orange Care -Grange Lea ltd had fabricated allegations that could not be proven, destroyed evidence and even tried to deceive the court in a trial that astonished the judge with the careless audacity that they had in even defending the case against the huge and overwhelming arguments that Unichef put forward on Chef Victoria's behalf. This was truly a case that should never have come to Court but for the narcissistic attitude of its Director, who simply wanted to destroy a loyal and conscientious employee of 5 years’ service. His folly will now cost him dearly. Once again, the National Chefs Union has stood by its member all the way and will do so again when our chefs are so clearly victimised as Victoria was. Victoria is a wonderful person and a hard-working chef, and we are delighted that she now has the chance to rebuild her life This is yet another massive victory for Unichef and shows the power that the National Chefs Union can have against dreadful employers when Chefs dare to stand up. You can now read the full transcript of the Judgement here. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/685e5b5ee44db4975be00b1c/Victoria_Barker_-vs-_Orange_Care-Grange_Lea_Ltd_-_1402352.2024_-_Judgment.pdf

The Case of the chef who was accused of not updating an allergens list and was then dismissed has now ended after what was a very long and exhausting trial. The case has now been “Referred for judgment” so that the judge can review all of the evidence and come to a decision, hopefully within the next few weeks. Without doubt, this has been the longest and most thorough case we have ever taken part in and one which has seen us have to match our skills against one of the biggest HR companies in the UK, as well as taking on EHOs and the FSA in lengthy arguments. The FSA has accepted that this case has raised issues that need to be considered, namely who is ultimately accountable and what level of Allergen training is considered suitable, as well as quantifying the Mandatory regulations of which many employers are still unaware. With more than 300 pages of evidence and supporting documentation as well as a year’s work in bringing this case and supporting it, it has driven us to a level we hadn’t ever imagined, as we have learned and gained so much from it. At stake is the very fact that ( if proven ) any chef in the UK can be dismissed for 1 single error, and this could have massive repercussions throughout the industry. Just one mistake in not applying allergens and any chef can be dismissed, the very thought of this is mind-boggling, and one of the main reasons that Unichef decided to fight this case. Together with our utter belief in the Chef's innocence, this case will be a milestone in Unichefs history, win or lose. Now we must wait for that decision. We are still VERY optimistic, we have put up a very strong case, and there are many leading and substantive arguments which the respondent cannot and has not denied. If that decision is applied in open court (without an” out of court settlement” ) then we will be able to report it to you; either way, we will keep you all updated. Thank you for your good wishes and kind support in this important case

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: 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. 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. 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.

The culinary world, renowned for its high-pressure environments and pursuit of excellence, has long been associated with a "macho" culture. This culture often manifests in behaviors and attitudes that contribute to toxic masculinity, leading to environments where bullying, harassment, and discrimination can thrive. Recent studies and accounts from industry professionals shed light on these pervasive issues and their impact on kitchen dynamics. Unichef: Advocating for a Supportive Culinary Community Established in 2015, Unichef—the National Chefs Union—emerged as a supportive community for UK-based chefs, regardless of their background, gender, age, or skill set. Transitioning into a Community Interest Company in 2019, Unichef operates as a vocational union, distinct from traditional trade unions, focusing on the well-being and professional development of chefs. The organization is committed to fostering diversity, tolerance, and understanding within the culinary industry, offering support in workplace matters, career advancement, and culinary passion. Unichef also emphasizes zero tolerance toward abuse in kitchens, striving to create safer and more inclusive working environments. Unichef - The National Chefs Union Toxic Masculinity in Professional Kitchens A study conducted by Cardiff University and Emlyon Business School, published in the journal Human Relations, reveals that many chefs still view enduring pain as a "medal of honour." The research, based on anonymous accounts from 62 Michelin-starred chefs, uncovers extreme suffering, including deliberate burnings, physical abuse, and bullying, as commonplace in high-end kitchens. Such practices contribute to a hyper-masculine environment, where both male and female chefs face significant challenges. diversity link.co.uk+1Personnel Today+1Personnel Today+1diversitylink.co.uk+1 Female chefs, in particular, often endure greater hardships as they strive to establish their identities in fine dining. Experiences of inappropriate behavior, unequal opportunities, and workplace anxiety have led many to leave professional kitchens. A collective of 70 prominent female chefs recently highlighted these issues in an open letter, condemning systemic misogyny and calling for more inclusive and equitable work conditions. Personnel TodayLatest news & breaking headlines The "Tattooed Chef" Image: A Reflection of Kitchen Culture The image of the "tattooed chef" has become emblematic of the culinary profession's rugged and rebellious persona. Tattoos often serve as expressions of individuality, creativity, and resilience—qualities celebrated in high-pressure kitchen environments. However, this visual representation can also perpetuate the macho culture, reinforcing stereotypes that may deter those who do not identify with such imagery. While tattoos themselves are not indicative of toxic behavior, the association of heavily tattooed chefs with toughness and endurance can contribute to an environment where vulnerability is suppressed, and harmful behaviors are normalized. Challenging these stereotypes is essential in promoting a more inclusive and supportive kitchen culture. Moving Forward: Cultivating a Healthier Kitchen Environment Addressing toxic masculinity in kitchens requires a multifaceted approach: Leadership and Mentorship: Promoting leadership styles that value empathy, collaboration, and open communication can transform kitchen dynamics. Mentorship programs that encourage diverse talent and perspectives are vital. Policy and Accountability: Implementing clear policies against bullying, harassment, and discrimination, coupled with mechanisms for reporting and addressing grievances, can create safer workplaces. Cultural Shift: Challenging the glorification of suffering and endurance in kitchens is crucial. Recognizing and rewarding healthy work practices, work-life balance, and mental well-being can lead to more sustainable careers. Organizations like Unichef play a pivotal role in advocating for these changes, striving to inspire, innovate, and educate both chefs and the broader culinary community. By confronting toxic masculinity and its manifestations, the industry can move toward a more inclusive, supportive, and thriving future.Unichef - The National Chefs Union Addressing Sexism and Toxic Culture in Professional Kitchens Latest news & breaking headlines Top male chefs say cut out sexism in 'toxic' restaurant kitchens 19 days ago Latest news & breaking headlines Female chefs condemn 'pervasive' sexism in British kitchens 30 days ago The Sun Gregg Wallace 'sexual comments' probe is 'tip of the iceberg' & MasterChef has 'toxic environment', ex-contestant claims 110 days ago Sources 4o

In a year that sees Unichef dealing with more cases of women "standing up" for their rights than ever before it's great to celebrate the amazing role our female colleagues play in Hospitality. Staggeringly, in 2015 when we started Unichef only 2% of our members were women. Today we are proud to say that it is now standing at 24% and growing,a sign of the great work we have done in making Unichef a safe place for female chefs to feel supported and cared for, a place where they feel equal and included. The fact that women have brought our last 4 tribunal listed cases is testimony of the ever increasing empowerment that women now feel in our profession and the growing determination of women not to be mistreated in the workplace. This can only be good for an industry starved of talent and diversity, and further proof that Inclusion, diversity, and stronger legislation are indeed the answer to the problems of recruitment and attraction to hospitality. Let's all celebrate and embrace a brighter, safer and healthier culture where our women chefs are proud and that male chefs are proud to work alongside them.

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.

As we start 2025 Unichef is taking a long hard look at the established methods of payment within the Chef Agency sector. Since the very early days of Chefs being employed by Agency’s it has been common practice for many ( if not all ) Agency’s to pay chefs according to either the clients requests, the chefs abilities, what a particular chef may demand in terms of payment, or even what the Agent thinks may be a suitable payment . The whole system with Agency pay has been shrouded in mystery for many, many years, often to the detriment of the chefs concerned.” charge Rates” ( what an agency charge’s the client ) are carefully guarded and transparency within the Agency Recruitment industry is opaque to say the least. The Recruitment industry is poorly regulated ( they say not ) and is VERY employer orientated, chefs in many cases ( not all ) are treated as fodder for the system and many Agencys avoid and ignore current employment legislation, believing that they are often not the true employers and that the rules do not apply to them, there are many grey areas that need to be resolved for sure. We have always known that a chef can be paid at one rate and another chef ( doing the same job, at the same venue ) a completely different rate, this has gone on for years, without chefs being able to complain. Recent developments in EU law has now enabled Unichef to take a further look at the system of how chefs are paid by Recruitment Agencys and are very much looking into what we believe may be a national scandal that has been going on for many years. You may well have heard or read about pay discrimination in high profile cases involving Next ,Asda and Tesco and now Morrisons too are coming under the same spotlight. A few years ago the European Court of Justice ruled ( in the Asda case ) that the test for wage discrimination should be the “value to the firm” placed upon an employee and that all employees of a similar job description are of equal value to that firm, irrelevant of talent, experience or what a third party client wishes to pay the firm for that service. In the Asda case the Court found that employees stacking shelves on the shop floor were paid less than employees stacking shelves in the Wherehouse, effectively the same job. The Court ruled that they both had an “equal value “ to Asda and further ruled that this “test” should be applied when looking at any case of wage discrimination. That Judgement has now been “handed down” to the British Courts and is indeed now on our statue books, it is now British Law that all employees of “equal Value “ to the film employing them that they be paid equally. Turning this into a culinary environment and certainly into an Agency situation, the law as interpretated by Unichef means that any chef employed by an agency whether working in a 5* hotel or a care home should receive the same pay rate regardless of where they work or what a client is prepared to pay that Agency for their services. Our view, which we are now consulting on, is that if a Agency chef is cutting carrots in a Care Home or school or is cutting carrots in a Hotel then the job is effectively the same and the pay rate should be also the same. What a client has been charged is irrelevant and the Agency’s should pay the same to each chef. Just how right we are remains to be tested and as part of that consultation we really need to hear the stories of Agency chefs across the country who know of case where they have been paid unfairly and their views on what we have said. Chefs can have there say here on this site or they can contact us by email admin@thechefsunion.co.uk

For all those who have followed this incredible story, here is the latest news. As you recall, our Member, A devoted Care Home Chef was dismissed for allegedly not completing an Allergen report. The Employer fabricated everything in order to dismiss her and Unichef submitted a massive 10 page IT1 to the Tribunal. So strong was the case and legal merit put forward by Unichef that the employer has not submitted a defence and the case hase been won by default. This is fantastic news for our member and our team who worked so hard to put a strong claim in for her. The case is now with a judge for evaluation on compensation. This chef did no wrong, was a valued employer for more than 5 years and supported the Care Home though the pandemic at risk to herself and family. She had no previous warnings or disciplinary's and was an exemplary employee. The owner is a narcistic sexist bully who thought he could do as he wished with his employees. Unichef has shown once more that we are afraid of no one, we take on those who hurt and harm our members, no matter who they are.

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

It's no surprise that Leeds fated Michelin-listed Man Behind the Curtain has finally closed its doors after what can only be described as one man's egotistical culinary adventure. Michael O'Hare has gained not fame but notoriety by often challenging the culinary norms with Avant Garde perceptions of what people want to eat and experience. If there was ever a reason just why Michelin must look deeply at its criteria for culinary awards then it is indeed this venture. That this chef thought it perfectly acceptable to serve his paying customers a Red Sea Prawn on the top of an old-fashioned telephone beggars' belief clearly indicated that this chef thought more about his ego than his customer's satisfaction, the opposite of a gourmet Michelin experience. Once again the demands of creating and keeping a Michelin starred Restaurant have shown that the best and only the very best deserve this accolade and proof yet again that the deliberate lowering of standards by Michelin in giving awards to the masses for the sake of delivering the brand has shown the catastrophic damage it creates. It's this" Moral Compass" that Unichef has demanded from Michelin and the Hospitality Industry and the fact that the vast majority of the money owed is to the Inland Revenue shows just that. Half a million quid that could have been used to help those in poverty, those in need, and even our chefs and waiters with Mental Health Issues are all now down the drain. Half a million pounds of Taxpayers' money, squandered away all for a Michelin Star? The list of Michelin accredited Restaurants that have closed or have entered Bankruptcy is simply breathtaking and has sent a shockwave through the business community, Banks no longer borrow and suppliers demand cash on delivery, simply anyone with a Michelin Restaurant is no longer considered a "cash cow" but a severe liability. Chefs who only service their own ego do nothing for our industry or our profession and are happy for others to pick up the pieces and should never again be allowed to open any restaurant let alone be associated with Michelin. Their talent is never in doubt and we make that clear but many lack basic business and people skills, their focus on obtaining and then maintaining a star is the only thing they become obsessed with and they seem to often forget that first and foremost when they switch on their lights each morning that they are employers, not superstars. Michael O’Hare’s Man Behind the Curtain 'wound up voluntarily' due to £1m debt WWW.THECATERER.COM The company behind the Man Behind the Curtain in Leeds, which traded as Psycho Sandbar, was shown to have owed almost £1m when it entered liquidation last month.

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.