Case 2401671/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Burke v DHL International (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401671/2023
- Decision date
- 3 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs C Bowman, Mr N Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Burke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The extract records that the Tribunal applied the statutory fairness issue under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with remedy and any Polkey or contributory fault deductions left for a later hearing.
The Tribunal also found that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability of anxiety. It found that the respondent knew or could reasonably have been expected to know about the disability and likely disadvantage, and that a reasonable employer with the respondent's resources would have made further enquiries and consulted with the claimant when he returned to work in April 2021.
The Tribunal found that placing the claimant on delivery-only rounds, after consultation and fine tuning, would have been a reasonable adjustment to alleviate the substantial disadvantage connected with collections and customer engagement. It found that the respondent should reasonably have taken those steps by 23 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only. Remedy, including any Polkey and contributory fault deductions, was listed for a later one-day hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The upheld disability claim was failure to make reasonable adjustments. Remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21
- EHRC Code of Practice paragraphs 6.24, 6.28 and 6.32
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.