Case 3303842/2020 · Employment Tribunal
MR BENETAR v Charlotte Guest House Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303842/2020
- Decision date
- 1 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan
- Panel members
- Ms Jaffe, Mr Dykes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR BENETAR
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as the respondent's general manager from 4 November 2019. He raised concerns in November 2019 and again in a grievance dated 5 February 2020 about the kitchen extractor system, describing fumes, health and safety risks, and a fire risk. The tribunal found that the internal discussion on 11 November 2019 and the extraction-related parts of the grievance were protected disclosures under section 43B ERA 1996 because they disclosed specific information which the claimant reasonably believed showed health and safety risks and matters in the public interest.
The tribunal did not accept that the external reports to Camden Council and the HSE were protected disclosures in the circumstances relied on. It found that the claimant had not shown that those external disclosures were reasonable under section 43G ERA 1996, noting that the respondent had already authorised steps to address the extractor issue and that the claimant, as general manager, had taken no action to progress the project. The tribunal also found that, even if those external disclosures were protected, they were not known to Mr Hoffart and played no part in the grievance handling or the dismissal.
The detriment claim failed. The tribunal found that the respondent dealt with the grievance fairly, that Ms Bigley produced a detailed report, and that part of the grievance succeeded because the respondent had incorrectly withheld deposits from staff and the claimant's deposit was repaid. The remaining extraction complaints were not upheld, but that did not amount to a section 47B detriment.
The dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 also failed. The tribunal found a genuine conduct issue arising from the letter dated 11 November 2019 which the claimant drafted and signed on behalf of Mr Hoffart without permission. It accepted that Mr Hoffart believed the letter had been used to support a parking permit application and concluded that the claimant's conduct, and in particular what was viewed as a breach of trust, was the reason for dismissal. The tribunal therefore dismissed the whistleblowing dismissal claim and recorded the wages claim as withdrawn and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant confirmed this claim was withdrawn; the judgment also records it as withdrawn and dismissed. The grievance outcome had already resulted in repayment of the disputed deposit sum. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriment contrary to section 47B ERA 1996, pleaded as the respondent not treating the grievance fairly. The tribunal found the grievance was dealt with fairly and that the remaining complaints were not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct, specifically the claimant's role in drafting and signing a letter on behalf of Mr Hoffart without permission, and not protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43F ERA 1996
- s.43G ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A 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.