Trainer dismissed for failing to conduct practical assessment: a fair conduct dismissal
A manual handling equipment trainer with 9 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to carry out practical assessments for two returning employees. The tribunal upheld DHL's decision.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #health-and-safety
- #gross-misconduct
- #investigation
- #ops29-form
- #reach-truck
- #witness-statements
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Manual Handling Equipment Trainer from 1 February 2013 until dismissal on 13 October 2022.
- On 26 April 2022, the claimant was assigned to assess two employees (SH and AR) returning from long-term absence.
- Both SH and AR later alleged that the claimant did not conduct the practical part of the assessment.
- The respondent's investigation found no evidence of a practical assessment, including missing Ops29 forms and a vehicle that had left site years earlier.
- The claimant was dismissed summarily for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing.
- The appeal upheld the dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started working for DHL Services Ltd as an Internal Logistics Operator.
-
Role change to MHE Trainer
Claimant moved to the role of Manual Handling Equipment Trainer.
-
Assessment of SH and AR
Claimant conducted assessments for SH and AR, who were returning from long-term absence. Both signed forms indicating they passed.
-
Incident involving SH
SH had a near-miss incident while driving a reach truck, prompting an investigation.
-
AR's witness statement
AR stated that the claimant did not conduct the practical assessment.
-
Investigation letter to claimant
Claimant invited to investigation meeting regarding the alleged failure to conduct practical assessment.
-
First investigation meeting
Claimant attended investigation meeting and maintained that practical assessments were carried out.
-
Interview with SS
SS denied speaking to claimant about sourcing a vehicle on 26 April 2022.
-
Interview with PB
PB also denied speaking to claimant about a vehicle.
-
Second investigation meeting
Claimant informed that SS and PB had no recollection; claimant suggested practical assessment may have taken place in BS3 or R5.
-
Disciplinary hearing (day 1)
Claimant attended disciplinary hearing; hearing adjourned to investigate vehicles in area BS3.
-
Disciplinary hearing (day 2) and dismissal
Claimant dismissed summarily for gross misconduct after review of Ops29 books showed no evidence of practical assessment.
-
Dismissal letter
Jason Chandler confirmed dismissal in writing.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Timothy Marriott.
-
Further investigation by appeal officer
Timothy Marriott met with AR, who confirmed no practical assessment took place.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal dismissed; dismissal upheld.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation started
ACAS Early Conciliation period began.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation ended
ACAS Early Conciliation period ended.
-
ET1 claim filed
Claimant filed claim for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.
-
Holiday pay and arrears claims withdrawn
Claims for holiday pay and arrears of pay were withdrawn.
-
Hearing day 1
Substantive hearing by CVP.
-
Hearing day 2
Substantive hearing concluded; judgment reserved.
-
Reserved decision date
Judgment reserved on this date.
-
Judgment sent
Written judgment sent to parties.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for a conduct dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- DHL had a genuine belief that the claimant failed to conduct practical assessments, based on witness statements and missing paperwork.
- The investigation was reasonable, including multiple meetings and further enquiries.
- Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the seriousness of the misconduct (potential health and safety breach).
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should conduct a thorough investigation, including gathering witness statements and documentary evidence, before dismissing for misconduct.
- A genuine belief in misconduct, formed on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, can justify dismissal even if the employee denies the allegations.
- Health and safety breaches are often treated as gross misconduct, so trainers and assessors must follow procedures carefully.
- Length of service does not automatically protect an employee if the misconduct is serious and the process is fair.
What this case shows in practice
A manual handling equipment trainer with nine years' service was dismissed after two employees alleged he did not conduct the practical part of their assessments. The employees had returned from long-term absence and were required to pass a theory and practical test. Both signed forms indicating they passed, but later said no practical assessment took place. An investigation found no evidence of a practical assessment, including missing Ops29 forms and a vehicle that had left site years earlier. The trainer was dismissed for gross misconduct.
What the employer did right
DHL conducted a thorough investigation. They interviewed the claimant multiple times, spoke to witnesses, and checked vehicle records. The dismissing officer considered the evidence and concluded the claimant had not carried out the practical assessments. The appeal officer also conducted further enquiries before upholding the dismissal. The tribunal found this process was reasonable and that DHL had a genuine belief in the misconduct.
Why the result matters
This case shows that employers can fairly dismiss for conduct if they have reasonable grounds and carry out a reasonable investigation. Even a long-serving employee can be dismissed if the misconduct is serious, such as a potential health and safety breach. The tribunal emphasised that it is not for them to substitute their own decision, but to assess whether the employer's decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
Similar cases
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
Medical secretary dismissed for racist comments: NHS trust's decision upheld
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a medical secretary who made racist comments about a colleague's appointment, finding the NHS trust acted reasonably.
Shift manager dismissed for lone working and asking staff to stay after clocking out
A Lidl shift manager who admitted lone working and asking colleagues to remain in store after clocking out was fairly dismissed, the tribunal ruled.
Technical manager dismissed for bypassing safety device: conduct dismissal upheld
A Technical Services Manager was fairly dismissed after bypassing an overheat stat on an air handling unit and swearing at a colleague. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.