Mr F Saeed v DHL Services Limited HELD AT: Manchester (in person) — 2024

Mr Saeed worked for DHL as a warehouse operative from 26 July 2022 and was dismissed during his probationary period on 3 October 2022. The tribunal found DHL had health and safety representatives and reporting routes, including SLAM forms and a red-tagging process for damaged equipment, and accepted the respondent's evidence that Mr Saeed had been trained in those systems. It rejected most of the alleged health and safety complaints as not made as alleged, and found the only complaint it accepted, the 19 September 2022 discussion with Joanna Jarecka, was not shown to be a genuine health and safety complaint for the purposes of section 100 ERA 1996.

On the section 100 dismissal claim and the related sections 44 and 48 detriment claim, the tribunal found the dismissal followed the probation review process and was based on performance, attendance and conduct, including poor picking rates, absence during probation and conduct towards colleagues. It rejected the alleged threats, job allocation complaints and comfort-break allegations as not proved, and found the comments attributed to Jonathan Buller were part of the probation decision rather than detriments linked to health and safety complaints. The tribunal also noted that Mr Saeed did not have sufficient service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 108 ERA 1996.

All of the Equality Act claims failed. The tribunal did not accept the alleged age, race or religion comments as showing less favourable treatment or harassment, found no evidence that the First Line Manager vacancy allegation had been proved, and said there was very little evidence about religion. It rejected the unlawful deduction claim, finding Mr Saeed had been paid for the hours worked up to termination and one week's notice, and found no convincing evidence of any bonus entitlement. The tribunal dismissed every live claim and awarded no compensation.