DHL Loses Appeal Over Flawed Dismissal Process for Long-Term Sick Employee
DHL's appeal process for a dismissed driver was deemed "strikingly flawed," leading to a successful unfair dismissal appeal.
• public
Tribunal Overturns Initial Ruling in Favour of Dismissed Driver
DHL Services Limited has been found to have unfairly dismissed a driver after a series of significant procedural errors in its internal appeal process. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned an earlier Employment Tribunal (ET) decision, highlighting how a defective appeal can render an otherwise fair dismissal unfair.
A Tumultuous Appeal Process
The case involved an employee, Mr Ernest Milrine, dismissed for medical incapability after a prolonged absence due to conditions including vertigo and vestibular migraines. While the initial dismissal might have been considered fair by some standards, the subsequent internal appeal process descended into disarray.
The appeal was initially assigned to a manager who refused to hear it. His replacement then failed to attend a rescheduled hearing, leaving the claimant and his union representative waiting in vain. In a further twist, the HR business partner placed the onus on the claimant to select the appeal manager and propose dates, without confirming this arrangement in writing. Crucially, when the claimant began Acas early conciliation, believing it would halt the internal appeal, DHL failed to clarify matters or check his intentions. The internal appeal never actually took place.
Tribunal Criticises "Strikingly Flawed" Procedures
Despite acknowledging the procedural failings at the appeal stage, the original ET had deemed the dismissal fair, reasoning that the claimant had been offered an appeal but had not pursued it. However, the EAT disagreed, citing established legal principles. The EAT emphasised that the more serious the defects in an appeal process, the greater the obligation on an ET to explain why a dismissal is considered fair overall.
The EAT noted that the procedural defects were "striking" and involved a lack of decisive action from DHL. These included the claimant being left to choose an appeal manager and dates without written confirmation, and the company’s failure to follow up when the claimant did not respond, instead relying on indirect contact through Acas.
Finding of Unfair Dismissal Substituted
The EAT concluded that the ET had erred in its assessment by failing to adequately consider the impact of the flawed appeal process. The Tribunal substituted a finding of unfair dismissal, stating that the severity of the procedural issues meant the dismissal could only be considered unfair. The lay members, with extensive experience in employment relations, described the appeal process as one they had "never seen quite like it".
The case serves as a stark reminder to employers of the importance of a fair and properly conducted internal appeal process, even when the initial dismissal appears justifiable.
Read the entire judgment here: Milrine v DHL Services Limited [2026] EAT 31
