DPD Driver's Unfair Dismissal Case Reopened Over Length of Service
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has allowed an appeal against an unfair dismissal ruling, highlighting concerns over the consideration given to a DPD driver's 25 years of service.
• public
DPD Driver's Dismissal Faces Fresh Scrutiny
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a previous decision in the case of Mr. K Taak against DPD Group UK Ltd, ordering a fresh review of his unfair dismissal claim. The core issue? Whether DPD adequately considered Mr. Taak's lengthy, and mostly unblemished, 25-year service before dismissing him.
Mr. Taak was dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to disclose a driving disqualification to DPD. This occurred while he was already under a final written warning for a separate incident. An employment tribunal initially dismissed his claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal. However, the EAT has now intervened, focusing specifically on whether the dismissing officer, Mr. Silvestri, properly weighed Mr. Taak's long service as a mitigating factor.
Contradictory Evidence and Tribunal Concerns
A key point of contention revolved around Mr. Silvestri's evidence. While his written statement indicated that he had considered Mr. Taak's length of service, his responses during cross-examination suggested otherwise. He seemed to imply that length of service wasn't a necessary consideration given the seriousness of the misconduct. This apparent contradiction raised concerns for the EAT.
Judge Auerbach acknowledged that the original tribunal's decision was "extremely thorough, careful and conscientious." However, he concluded that the tribunal had "materially fall[en] short in its treatment of this point," failing to adequately address the conflicting evidence regarding Mr. Silvestri's consideration of length of service.
What Happens Now?
The case has been remitted back to the employment tribunal for a new judge to determine whether Mr. Silvestri genuinely considered Mr. Taak's length of service when making the decision to dismiss. Crucially, Mr. Silvestri will be called to give evidence again and be cross-examined.
The outcome of this fresh assessment will determine whether Mr. Taak's dismissal is deemed fair or unfair. Should the tribunal find the dismissal unfair, it will then need to consider potential remedies, such as compensation, taking into account factors such as Polkey deductions (reductions for the likelihood of dismissal even with a fair process) and contributory conduct.
The case highlights the importance of employers giving due consideration to an employee's length of service, particularly when dealing with misconduct. It serves as a reminder that even serious misconduct doesn't automatically negate the need to weigh mitigating factors, such as a long and previously clean disciplinary record.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr. K Taak v DPD Group UK Ltd [2025] EAT 174
