Mr M Yates v DHL Supply Chain Limited — 2023

This was a reserved judgment on a preliminary hearing dealing with the respondent's strike-out application, not a final merits decision. The tribunal held that the claimant did not have a reasonably arguable claim that the respondent was contractually bound to follow a dismissal or capability procedure before dismissal. It also held that the claimant's argument that the dismissal letter did not terminate the contract, so that the contract continued beyond 10 March 2023, had no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal allowed the arrears of pay complaint to proceed. It accepted that, although the claim had been pleaded briefly, the ET1 had identified arrears of pay and there was a reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing an alleged verbal agreement to increase his salary. The tribunal said that claim could proceed as an unauthorised deductions from wages claim and, in the alternative, as a contractual claim.

The tribunal also allowed part of the PILON complaint to proceed. It struck out the argument that PILON should reflect an anticipated June 2023 pay rise, because the contract referred to salary as at the date of termination. But it held that the claimant had an arguable breach of contract case concerning the timing and handling of the PILON payments, including whether the way the respondent made, recovered and reprocessed payments left him worse off because of tax and deductions.