Mr Daron Parker v DPD Group UK Limited FINAL HEARING — 2021

Mr Parker was employed as an HGV driver and was summarily dismissed on 20 April 2020 for making an unauthorised stop on 18 March 2020. The respondent's disciplinary rules and driver handbook treated unauthorised stopping as gross misconduct, and the tribunal noted that the claimant had admitted making the stop. The claimant said he stopped because trim from a wheel arch had come off, and he also advanced inconsistent accounts about a supposed 15-minute rule, attempts to contact the Traffic Office, and wheel-nut checks.

On the unfair dismissal claim, Employment Judge Camp applied section 98 of the ERA 1996, the Burchell test, and the band of reasonable responses approach. The tribunal found that the respondent honestly believed the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonably thorough investigation through the investigatory meeting, disciplinary hearing, and two appeal stages. The tribunal rejected the claimant's suggestion that he had been dismissed as part of a plan to replace drivers with cheaper Romanian workers, describing that allegation as inherently incredible and unsubstantiated.

The tribunal placed weight on the claimant's shifting and contradictory explanations, including his differing accounts of whether he believed he could stop without authorisation, whether he tried to call the Traffic Office, and whether a phone network problem prevented a call. It also found that the respondent went beyond the ACAS Code by providing a second full appeal. In those circumstances, the dismissal was found fair under ERA 1996 sections 98(1) and 98(4).

On the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established any good reason for failing to notify the Traffic Office and was not satisfied that he made any genuine attempt to do so. It found that his conduct breached trust and confidence and amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. The respondent was therefore entitled to dismiss summarily without notice, and no award was made.