Whistle-blowing Pavilion chef's £12,000 Tribunal award

An employment tribunal concluded Steve Houghton had been forced to resign in August 2002 due to a 'fundamental breach' of the 'relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee.'

It stated managers at the De La Warr had:

q Failed to respond to numerous genuine concerns raised by Mr Houghton relating to health and safety in the kitchens

q Failed to respond correctly to an allegation that Mr Houghton's locker had been searched in breach of his contract

q Failed to follow correct procedure during disciplinary actions against Mr Houghton

q Failed to keep reliable staff time-keeping records.

Mr Houghton, of Ninfield Road, began raising concerns about health and safety in the kitchen in early 2001 after beginning work at the De La Warr in July 1999. He was worried the kitchen was overstretched and ill-equipped and that might result in food being contaminated.

He told the tribunal he made a number of complaints to managers and trade union reps at the De La Warr but nothing was done. He eventually made eight complaints to environmental health officers in January 2002.

An inspection revealed a wall behind a cooker was not suitable for a food preparation room, staff changing facilities were inadequate, more training was needed and food prepared and refrigerated prior to use was not clearly dated.

The tribunal, held in Brighton over three days this March, May and July but concluded on Thursday when Mr Houghton was awarded the 12,380 sum, reported: "The actions by the respondent (Rother District Council) support the applicant's (Steve Houghton's) evidence that his manager, and others, showed little interest or regard for his continuing and genuine concerns."

It added: "The outcome of the inspection which followed these specific complaints supported some, if not all, of the applicant's health and safety concerns."

A further inspection in August found the concerns raised by environmental health officers in February had been addressed and no further action was required.

Mr Houghton was called to a disciplinary hearing in January 2002 following allegations that his attendance at work had not been satisfactory. He was suspended on full pay days later after his manager accused Mr Houghton of using threatening language when he informed him of the disciplinary proceedings.

However, Mr Houghton had been appointed as a Unison representative in November 2001 and as such was afforded different rights in disciplinary procedures, which state that no action beyond a verbal warning can be taken against a union rep until the case has been discussed with a personnel officer and area trade union official.

De La Warr managers refused to accept Mr Houghton's union status because they were not told about his appointment until the disciplinary hearing.

Mr Houghton complained his locker had been searched in breach of his contract around the same time. Managers admitted carrying out the search but incorrectly asserted they were following agreed procedure, the tribunal heard.

The tribunal report also said the De La Warr's staff time-keeping records were unsatisfactory and could not be relied upon as evidence.

It said De La Warr management had dealt with Mr Houghton's concerns with 'carelessness and complacency' and 'made no reasonable effort to deal with the applicant's genuine concerns.'

It added "The tribunal contrasts the integrity and commitment of the applicant with what it can only describe, at best, as the complacent attitude and actions of the respondent towards the applicant which at worst could be interpreted as a hostile disregard for his position and concerns."

The day-to-day running of the De La Warr was transferred from Rother to a charitable trust earlier this year. A spokesperson for the De La Warr said the tribunal was a matter between Mr Houghton and his employer, Rother District Council, and therefore had no comment to make.

Rother chief executive Derek Stevens said: "We were very, very surprised by the decision of the tribunal and equally surprised as to the level of damages awarded, which according to employment lawyers we have consulted are unusually high.

"The fact is, regular food hygiene inspections were always carried out at the De La Warr and standards were always found to be satisfactory. There were regular inspections and the small number of minor recommendations made by environmental health officers were always acted on swiftly."

Mr Houghton said: "I'm not particularly satisfied. Heads should have rolled. But at least now I can put it behind me, find a new job and get on with life."