Claimant v DHL Services Limited

The tribunal found that the respondent did not have a practice of holding meetings and important conversations in English without a suitable interpreter. When the claimant requested a professional interpreter, one was provided. On the occasions alleged, interpreters or assistance was available (e.g. Ms Vazheva) and the claimant had communicated effectively in English for nine years.

The tribunal found that the respondent did not apply the alleged PCP of requiring HGV drivers to drive for more than 10 hours per shift. Such a requirement would have been unlawful under legal restrictions on HGV driving hours. The claimant did not adduce evidence that he was required to drive more than 10 hours per day.

The tribunal did not accept that the alleged conduct on 10 July 2022 occurred as described by the claimant. The CCTV footage did not support the claimant's version of events. The tribunal found Ms Pickard acted because she believed the claimant was unreasonably refusing to do the allocated run, not because of his disability.

The tribunal found no evidence that Ms Pickard ignored the claimant's comments on 20 July 2022 because English was not his first language. The reason she asked him to leave was because she believed he was suspended and should not have been on site, not because of his race.

The tribunal found that the decision not to allow the claimant's friend to attend the grievance hearing was because a professional interpreter had been arranged and the claimant already had a union representative attending, in line with the respondent's policy. The raising of a discrimination grievance had no significant influence on this decision.

Although the tribunal found several breaches of the implied duty of trust and confidence (being told not to work after being asked to work, underpayment, harsh final written warning, suspension on 10 July), the claimant delayed almost six months before resigning and took steps to affirm the contract (raising a grievance, attending meetings, indicating willingness to return). The tribunal found the claimant waived the breaches.

The respondent admitted owing the claimant £235 in respect of unpaid wages for work done between 15 and 19 April 2022. The claim succeeded by consent.