A worker at a Didcot storage facility who spent more than twenty years employed by DHL has successfully pursued an unfair dismissal claim against the logistics company.

The employment tribunal found that the business did not challenge National Grid when the energy company demanded the employee’s removal from its site.

Employment Judge Findlay ruled that first line manager Mick Nutt, 56, suffered considerable unfairness after being removed from his role despite an internal DHL investigation finding no proof of wrongdoing concerning reported missing stock at National Grid’s strategic spares depot in Didcot.

An independent assessment conducted by Accenture in late 2023 revealed high-value items were missing, yet Mr Nutt and his direct supervisor quickly located the goods in another area of the building. A subsequent evaluation by a DHL inventory specialist concluded the manager had followed correct procedures and had no case to answer.

Despite this internal clearance, the senior National Grid representative at the site, Sally Nulty, demanded Mr Nutt’s dismissal, describing him in written communication as detrimental to the company and formally ordering DHL to withdraw him from the contract under a clause allowing clients to request staff changes for poor performance.

DHL acceded to the request, placed Mr Nutt on suspension and barred him from entering the Didcot location while reviewing his employment situation.

The tribunal heard Mr Nutt, who lives in Abingdon, was his family’s sole earner.

Judge Findlay noted that DHL presented him with only a restricted range of options and failed to pursue all available alternatives, as legal precedent demands when a client’s stance threatens clear injustice to a worker.

A substantial role available at DHL’s nearby Didcot site carried a lower pay grade with a decrease of up to £10,000 per year. Mr Nutt turned this down because of the considerable pay reduction and the downgrade in status involved.

The tribunal stated DHL ought to have examined protecting his existing salary and position at that stage, a step the human resources department later admitted was achievable but did not reveal until an appeal hearing in March.

Judge Findlay additionally criticised DHL for not providing National Grid with the document that exonerated Mr Nutt.

While National Grid’s demand for his removal was accepted as a potentially legitimate reason for contemplating dismissal, the judge determined that DHL’s handling of the situation went beyond the bounds of reasonable employer conduct and therefore amounted to unfair dismissal.

Mr Nutt will receive compensation for unfair dismissal, though his award will be cut by 10 percent under the Polkey doctrine to reflect the judge’s finding that there was only a slight likelihood he would have lost his job even if DHL had taken all reasonable steps.