Cases3304222/2023

Claimant v DHL International (UK) Limited

27 October 2025Before Employment Judge HawksworthReadingin person

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent failed to properly consider whether there was an alternative role which the claimant could do before proceeding with dismissal.

Direct Discrimination(disability)succeeded

The claim succeeded under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability). The tribunal found the respondent could reasonably have been expected to know the claimant had a disability at the time of dismissal, and dismissing without properly considering alternative roles was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Whistleblowingfailed

The complaint of protected disclosure (whistleblowing) detriment failed because the tribunal found that the claimant did not make protected disclosures within the meaning of the whistleblowing provisions.

Facts

Mr Trela, a Polish-speaking employee of DHL International (UK) Limited, was dismissed from his employment. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and whistleblowing detriment. The claimant represented himself at the tribunal with the assistance of a Polish interpreter. The case was heard over three days before a full panel.

Decision

The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims, ruling that DHL failed to properly consider alternative roles before dismissing him and that this was not a proportionate response given his disability. However, the whistleblowing claim failed as the tribunal found no protected disclosures were made.

Practical note

Employers must actively consider alternative employment for disabled employees before dismissal, and a failure to do so can constitute both unfair dismissal and unlawful discrimination arising from disability.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98EqA 2010 s.15EqA 2010 s.6

Case details

Case number
3304222/2023
Decision date
27 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No