Case 1600192/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. K Baker v Hepworth Blinds Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600192/2025
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace NLM
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms R Hartwell, Mr A Fryer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. K Baker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Cardiff hearing on 24, 25 and 26 September 2025, the Tribunal unanimously held that Ms K Baker was unfairly dismissed by Hepworth Blinds Ltd. It also found that the Respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, and increased the compensatory award by 5% under s 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's redundancy payment claim, finding that she was not entitled to a redundancy payment. It also dismissed the indirect sex discrimination complaint as not well-founded.
The Tribunal upheld the holiday pay complaint in respect of 4 days' annual leave accrued when employment ended, finding that the Respondent failed to pay in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages complaint, finding an unauthorised deduction in relation to the totality of the deduction concerning the 'Butt' order. The written record does not set out monetary figures for the awards, but it records the 5% ACAS uplift on the unfair dismissal compensation.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was found well-founded and the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal also recorded a 5% uplift for unreasonable non-compliance with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 under s 207A TULR(C)A 1992. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal determined that the Claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of indirect sex discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint was well-founded in respect of 4 days' annual leave accrued on the date employment ended, with failure to pay under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to the totality of the deduction concerning the 'Butt' order. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.