Case 3200476/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Efetie v Accor UK Business and Leisure Hotels Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200476/2023
- Decision date
- 30 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms G Forrest, Mr S Woodhouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard a whistleblowing detriment claim under sections 43B and 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It considered 15 alleged detriments said to have occurred between October 2021 and February 2023, including knife training, an incident involving a £5 tip, missing till/tablet accounts, allegations that staff were told he was not taking payments properly, ignored greetings, training another employee for a shift leader role, being given a document headed Protection of Personal Data of Team Members, rota and break issues around a leaving party, birthday and WhatsApp matters, instructions to new starters not to listen to him, a false accusation about food orders, and a failure to advertise the F&B shift leader role.
The tribunal recorded that all of those allegations failed except the March 2022 complaint about overtime hours, which the claimant withdrew. It therefore dismissed all but one of the whistleblowing detriment allegations and treated the remaining allegation as withdrawn. Because the only non-dismissed claim was withdrawn, the tribunal said there was no requirement to hold a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
15 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 43B and 47B ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.