Claimant v DHL Services Limited

The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's misconduct on 23 October 2023 by breaching health and safety procedures when he climbed on a trailer using an operational forklift truck. Darren Franklin genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses because the claimant committed a breach of health and safety which could potentially have been very serious, and he did not accept the seriousness of his conduct. The disciplinary process was thorough, fair, and conducted by independent decision-makers.

The claimant argued he was dismissed for taking steps to protect himself or others from serious and imminent danger under s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996. The tribunal did not find it credible that the claimant believed there was serious and imminent danger of paint or chemicals spilling from the containers. Even if he did believe this, the tribunal decided that was not a reasonable belief as the CCTV showed the containers contained rugs and curtain poles. The risk he took in standing near the forklift was greater than any risk of spillage.

The claimant alleged he was dismissed and treated less favourably because of his disability (spinal fusion, left ankle weakness, and neck pain). The tribunal found the claimant did not prove facts from which it could conclude he was dismissed because of disability. The alleged meeting in April 2023 did not persuade the tribunal that dismissal was pre-determined or disability-related. The claimant did not show his conduct on 23 October 2023 was affected by sleep problems caused by disability-related pain. The respondent proved the dismissal was in no sense whatsoever because the claimant was disabled; it was due to his potentially dangerous conduct and failure to appreciate its seriousness.

The claimant alleged unfavourable treatment arising from disability: (1) criticism for leaving his back brace in a cab on 10 July 2023, and (2) dismissal on 14 December 2023. The tribunal found that requiring the claimant to take his belongings (including back brace) with him was not unfavourable treatment but a reasonable and proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ensuring flexibility in vehicle use. The claimant did not prove a link between his disability and the dismissal. The reason for dismissal was his potentially dangerous conduct, not anything arising from his disability.

The claimant argued the respondent should have: (1) ensured he always had a trailer with a loaded box only (no curtain side work), and (2) allowed him to use the same truck each day. The tribunal concluded that allocating the same truck every day was not reasonable because the back brace was not very heavy and the respondent needed flexibility in allocating trucks (it was rare for drivers to use different vehicles anyway). The adjustment already in place (colleagues helping pull back curtains when allocated a curtain sided trailer) effectively alleviated the disadvantage. Therefore, no further adjustments were reasonable.

The claimant claimed he was owed 1-2 days holiday pay at termination. His contract provided that holiday pay for leavers during the holiday year would be calculated on the basis of statutory entitlement (28 days). The respondent calculated entitlement on 29 days to account for the King's Coronation bank holiday. The tribunal found the contractual terms prevailed and permitted calculation based on statutory entitlement, so there was no unlawful deduction of wages.