Mr Syed Ali Nasir v DHL Services Limited — 2026

Mr Syed Ali Nasir resigned from DHL Services Ltd on 22 June 2024 and alleged constructive unfair dismissal based on the cumulative effect of matters including his move from the AM to PM shift, the handling of two grievances, the delay in returning him to the AM shift, alleged conduct at meetings on 27 March and 17 June 2024, and an alleged failure to provide refresher training. The tribunal found that the contractual shift change was made for business reasons, both grievances were thoroughly investigated, and the delay in returning him to the AM shift resulted from the need to find a suitable replacement.

The tribunal found no bullying or aggression by managers at the meeting on 27 March and found that Mr Hynard appropriately raised an operational issue with the claimant on 17 June. It also found no failure warranting criticism concerning refresher training. The only conduct established from the claimant's allegations was Mr McCallam's occasional swearing in conversations. The tribunal held that this did not destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence and that any minor contractual breach had in any event been waived by the claimant's continuation in employment and acceptance of Mr McCallam's apology.

Applying the contractual principles in Western Excavating and the implied term formulated in Malik and Mahmud, the tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and no last straw. The constructive dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the claim for notice monies fell with it.

The first alleged protected disclosure was the claimant's grievance of 27 July 2023 concerning his shift change. Although it disclosed information, the claimant accepted that it concerned his personal circumstances, was not raised in the public interest and did not raise health and safety matters. The tribunal therefore found that it was not a qualifying disclosure.

The second alleged protected disclosure was the grievance of 4 April 2024 concerning the meeting on 27 March. The reference to the claimant's mental wellbeing was sufficient to indicate that he considered his own health and safety to have been endangered, but the reference to a bullying culture was an allegation rather than information. The tribunal found that the claimant was concerned only with his own situation and did not believe that he was making the disclosure in the public interest, so this grievance was also not a qualifying disclosure.

The tribunal additionally considered the alleged detriments and found that the delay in implementing the first grievance outcome was unrelated to that grievance; the alleged bullying and the alleged instruction to “suck it up” did not occur; and the absence of refresher training and Mr Hynard's conduct were not influenced by the second grievance. The whistleblowing detriment claims were dismissed. The holiday-pay claim had previously been dismissed following withdrawal, and the judgment recorded no monetary award.