Claimant v DPD Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the claimant was not consulted on the redundancy pool and was not given adequate time to consider information to engage in meaningful consultation. However, the respondent reasonably applied its mind to the pool, determining to use the one establishment rule for the closure of Stoke. Had proper consultation occurred, the claimant would have been dismissed fairly 4 weeks later.
The Tribunal found the claimant (aged 63-64) failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The decision to move her to Stoke was based on her managerial capability, not age. The closure of Stoke affected 17 employees of varying ages. The respondent's use of the one establishment rule was consistent and reasonable, and there was no evidence the dismissal was tainted by age discrimination.
All five specific allegations of direct age discrimination were dismissed. The Tribunal found: (1) The move to Stoke was not pre-planned for closure and was out of time; (2) The claimant was sent to improve performance based on her abilities; (3) The one establishment rule was applied consistently; (4) Dismissal was for genuine redundancy, not age; (5) The appeal failure was incompetence, not discrimination.
Facts
The claimant, aged 63-64, was a National Customer Services Manager with DPD. In 2020 she was moved from Stoke to Smethwick to improve performance, which she did successfully. In 2022, she was moved back to Stoke (swapped with a younger manager, Sam Hodgkins) to improve the failing Stoke depot. Stoke had recruitment issues and a freeze was imposed. In June 2023, the respondent announced Stoke's closure, putting 17 employees at risk including the claimant. The respondent used the one establishment rule, not pooling with other sites. The claimant was dismissed for redundancy on 31 July 2023.
Decision
The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim succeeded on procedural grounds: the respondent failed to consult on the pool or provide adequate time for meaningful consultation. However, using Polkey, the Tribunal found the claimant would have been dismissed fairly 4 weeks later, as the one establishment rule was reasonable. The age discrimination claims all failed: the move to Stoke was based on managerial capability, the closure affected employees of all ages, and there was no evidence age motivated any decision.
Practical note
Even where an employer's redundancy pool selection is substantively reasonable (e.g., using the one establishment rule on site closure), failure to consult the employee about that pool and provide adequate time for meaningful consultation will render the dismissal procedurally unfair, though Polkey may significantly limit compensation if the outcome would have been the same.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
The Tribunal determined that had adequate consultation taken place for 4 additional weeks, the claimant would have been dismissed fairly after that period. The respondent would still have used the one establishment rule and dismissed the claimant. The claimant was awarded only 4 weeks' pay.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1308599/2023
- Decision date
- 16 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- National Customer Services Manager
- Service
- 8 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep