One of the many advantages of ET judgments being available online is it means more cases are reported on. Whilst ET cases do not set binding precedent on future cases, it does indicate how the judiciary will look at similar claims and shows trends that might not emerge till much later had we waited for the claim to be heard at EAT level.
One such reported ET case is that of Ali v Indian Cuisine Ltd. In this case the Respondent ran a group of high-end Michelin starred Indian restaurants in London. The Claimant became aware that the Head Chef was using Knorr chicken stock in Halal, vegetarian and vegan meals and this compromised the ethical principles of those who ate them. It also meant staff were giving out incorrect allergy information.
The Claimant reported these issues and was made redundant. Everyone else in the same role was also made redundant a month later as part of a business reorganisation. The Claimant bought successful whistleblowing claims as the ET held that it was in the public interest to express concerns that foods sold as vegan and halal might not be correctly labelled.
Whilst this case is only persuasive, it highlights a trend of dietary lifestyles having an impact on employment cases. In this case it is also worth noting that the compensatory award was capped at a month given other staff were made redundant. Perhaps one that would have been worth settling to keep the chicken stock out of public knowledge?