Case 4112057/2021 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112057/2021 & 4112399/2021 Held in Glasgow on 13, 14, and June 2022 Employment Judge - A Strain Members – I Ashraf and S Singh Mr Martin Doyle v DHL Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4112057/2021
- Decision date
- 17 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Strain Date
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- I Ashraf, S Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112057/2021 & 4112399/2021 Held in Glasgow on 13, 14, and June 2022 Employment Judge - A Strain Members – I Ashraf and S Singh Mr Martin Doyle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who is of the Catholic faith, was employed by the respondent as a warehouse operative working 16 hours per week at Glasgow Central Station. He also worked additional hours through an agency on the Caledonian Sleeper contract. Network Rail revoked his access to Glasgow Central Station after parking permit issues and a recorded call with a Network Rail employee, and the respondent later dismissed him after considering and offering redeployment.
The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely third-party pressure arising from Network Rail's removal of access. It found the respondent had tried to persuade Network Rail to change its position, offered alternative work at East Kilbride, and had no other work available after the claimant rejected that offer. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal dismissed the religious discrimination and harassment claims. It found the agency arrangement for the Caledonian Sleeper contract was adopted for business reasons, that religion played no part in the decision to dismiss, and that the alleged March-April 2020 incidents had not occurred. It also dismissed the unlawful deductions claim because the disputed additional hours were agency hours and the claimant had been paid for all hours worked with the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for some other substantial reason, namely third-party pressure after Network Rail revoked the claimant's access, and that the dismissal was fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination allegations concerned being told to register with an agency for Caledonian Sleeper work, alleged March-April 2020 incidents, and the decision to dismiss. The tribunal found religion did not motivate the agency arrangement or dismissal, and did not accept that the March-April incidents occurred. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The harassment allegation related to alleged incidents in March-April 2020. The tribunal did not accept the claimant's evidence that those incidents occurred. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had received payment for all hours worked with the respondent, and that hours above 16 per week on the Caledonian Sleeper contract were the responsibility of the agency. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 702
- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Section 23(1) Equality Act 2010
- two-stage burden of proof
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar [1998] IRLR 36 (HL)
- Section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Section 26(4) Equality Act 2010
- Section 124(2)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] IRLR 102 CA
- Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039
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.