Case 3304222/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Trela v DHL International (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304222/2023
- Decision date
- 2 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms C Carr, Dr C Whitehouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Trela
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. It held that the respondent failed to properly consider whether there was an alternative role which the claimant could do.
The tribunal also upheld the complaint of discrimination arising from disability. It found that the respondent could reasonably have been expected to know at the time of dismissal that the claimant had a disability, and that dismissal without properly considering alternative roles was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The protected disclosure detriment complaint failed. The tribunal found that the claimant did not make protected whistleblowing disclosures.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of protected disclosure detriment failed because the tribunal found that the claimant did not make protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
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.