Claimant v DHL Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The respondent dismissed the claimant due to difficulties in professional relationship with colleague Mrs Motycznska and claimant's inability to work alternative shifts or relocate to Dartford site. The tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and found the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
The tribunal found the claimant's inability to work the day shift was due to caring responsibilities for his disabled son, not his own disability. The claimant admitted in oral evidence he could adjust his body clock over time but could not alter his responsibility to monitor his son while sleeping.
The tribunal found the claimant's inability to work alternative shifts arose from caring responsibilities for his disabled son rather than from his own disability. The dismissal was therefore not discrimination arising from disability.
The tribunal found no failure to make reasonable adjustments. The respondent offered the claimant the option to relocate to the Dartford site which the claimant declined. The claimant's inability to work alternative shifts was due to caring responsibilities rather than his own disability.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed after difficulties arose in his professional relationship with colleague Mrs Motycznska. The respondent decided the claimant could not return to work on the late shift with Mrs Motycznska and explored alternatives including the day shift (which claimant said he could not work due to caring responsibilities for his disabled son) and relocation to Dartford (which claimant declined). The dismissal was managed by Mark Stevens with appeal heard by Michael Ansell. Mediation with Mrs Motycznska was attempted but unsuccessful.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the dismissal was fair, falling within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal found the claimant's inability to work alternative shifts arose from caring responsibilities for his son rather than his own disability, and therefore the discrimination claims failed. The reconsideration application was refused as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Practical note
A claimant's caring responsibilities for a disabled family member do not constitute discrimination arising from the claimant's own disability, even where the claimant also has a disability.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 2303721/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No