Case 1601561/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Ewelina Butkiewicz v CAD Services Ltd t/a Facilities by ADF — 2022

Case reference: 1601561/2021
Decision date: 1 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Brace Members
Panel members: Ms A Burge, Mr P Pendle

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Ewelina Butkiewicz

Respondent

CAD Services Ltd t/a Facilities by ADF

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting at Cardiff by CVP on 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 October 2022 before Employment Judge R Brace with Ms A Burge and Mr P Pendle, unanimously dismissed all claims brought by Ms Ewelina Butkiewicz against CAD Services Ltd t/a Facilities by ADF. By consent, the respondent name was amended at the start of the judgment.

On the whistleblowing allegations, the tribunal found that Ms Butkiewicz did not make any disclosures that qualified for protection under s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996 and did not take action capable of protection under s.44 and/or s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996. It dismissed the detriment complaints under s.48 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the automatic unfair dismissal complaints under s.100 and/or 103A Employment Rights Act 1996.

It also dismissed the complaints of harassment related to sex under s.26 Equality Act 2010 and, in the alternative, direct sex discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010. The disability complaints were dismissed too: the tribunal rejected the claims of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 and failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under s.20/21 Equality Act 2010. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not provided in writing.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The tribunal found that the Claimant did not make any disclosures qualifying for protection under s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996, and did not take action capable of protection under s.44 and/or s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996. The detriment complaints under s.48 Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Automatic unfair dismissal complaints under s.100 and/or 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 were found not well-founded and dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Harassment	Harassment related to sex under s.26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The judgment states this was pleaded with an alternative direct sex discrimination complaint.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	Alternative direct sex discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed alongside the sex harassment complaint.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Disability discrimination	The complaints of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 and failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under s.20/21 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.