Mr P. Genockey v DHL Logistics Limited and 2 others — 2020

The claimant applied on 18 June 2017 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 19 April 2016. At Birmingham on 5 February 2018, Employment Judge Butler refused the application, holding that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.

The claimant argued that he should be classed as a worker of the first respondent because it had reported alleged gross misconduct to his employer, provided PPE and other equipment, and required him to complete a checklist recording battery changes and equipment progress. The tribunal rejected those points as insufficient to establish worker status and said that any disciplinary action had been taken by his employer, not the first respondent.

The tribunal also held that there was no evidence that the first respondent determined his pay terms or required permission for holiday, and that he was subject to his employer's disciplinary procedure rather than the first respondent's. It described the claimant's reliance on McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust as misconceived and did not accept that the circumstances were comparable.

The claimant also sought to comment on the fairness of his dismissal, but the tribunal noted that dismissal fairness was not in issue before it on this application. The result was that the reconsideration application was dismissed and the original decision stood.