Unfair Dismissal: When Reinstatement May Be Refused and Why Compensation Can Be Reduced 

A recent case, DHL Services Ltd v Ignatowicz (2026), is a useful reminder that even if you succeed in an unfair dismissal claim, the outcome may not be as straightforward as getting your job back or receiving full compensation. 

The decision highlights how Employment Tribunals approach reinstatement (placing an employee back in their job as if they haven’t been dismissed) and reductions in compensation for an employee’s own conduct. 

The facts of the case 

Mr Ignatowicz worked for DHL as a warehouse employee. After unsuccessfully applying for another role, he raised a grievance. He then posted about it on Facebook, alongside comments that included strong and, at times, troubling language, which included “capitalist dictatorship is evil and it has to be destroyed”. 

Over the following weeks, he made further posts, some of which referred to “enemies”, used aggressive wording, and could be interpreted as threatening. DHL investigated and ultimately dismissed him for misconduct without notice.   

Mr Ignatowicz brought a claim for unfair dismissal. 

What the Tribunal originally decided 

The Employment Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair. In particular, it said: 

• DHL had not given training on DHL’s social media guidelines 
• The employee had not been sent the relevant email and internet usage policy 
• The employee had not been asked to remove the initial post contrary to policy 
• There was little evidence of reputational damage or that the post had attracted the attention of the wider public 

The Tribunal ordered: 

• Reinstatement (the employee should get his job back). The Tribunal was not satisfied that DHL had a rational belief that trust and confidence had broken down or that the relationship was irretrievable; and 
• A 10% reduction in the compensatory award to reflect the employee’s actions including choosing not to keep his grievance within DHL whilst it was dealt with 

DHL appealed the decision arguing that: 

• The Tribunal was wrong in its consideration of reinstatement because it did not take Mr Ignatowicz’s conduct during litigation into consideration but substituted its own view on whether there was a breakdown in trust and confidence 
• The Tribunal’s conclusion that compensation should be reduced by 10% to take account of the Claimant’s contributory conduct was illogical 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed that the Tribunal had made errors in the following areas: 

1. In respect of re-instatement, the Tribunal had failed to consider whether, as a result of his conduct during litigation, DHL genuinely and rationally believed that it could no longer have confidence in the employee. While the Tribunal stated that it was not assisted by consideration of the employee’s conduct in the litigation, that conduct had to be assessed in considering the practicability of reinstatement as at the date of the remedy hearing. 
2. The language of the Tribunal decision demonstrated that it had considered whether it thought that reinstatement was practicable, rather than whether DHL genuinely and rationally believed it could no longer have confidence in Mr Ignatowicz. The Tribunal needed to consider how DHL's staff had been affected by the 6 June post, the 9 June post, the 15 July post, the August posts and Mr Ignatowicz's conduct in the litigation. 
3. The Tribunal had incorrectly considered contributory conduct when it was deciding whether reinstatement was practicable. The correct test was whether, having regard to his contribution to his dismissal, the Tribunal considered it would be just to order Mr Ignatowicz's reinstatement. As the Tribunal's assessment of contributory conduct was being remitted, any change to the level of contributory conduct found at the remitted hearing would need to be considered when deciding whether to order reinstatement. 

When looking at an employee’s behaviour and whether compensation should be reduced, a few key principles apply: 

• If an employee is asking to be reinstated or re-engaged, the Tribunal can take into account whether their actions caused or contributed to the dismissal when deciding whether it is fair to make that order. However, it is not relevant to the question of whether it is practical for the employer to take the employee back and comply with such an order. 
• The basic award can be reduced to reflect the employee’s conduct before dismissal (or before notice of dismissal was given if applicable). This reduction can be made where the Tribunal thinks it is just and equitable. Importantly, the conduct does not need to have caused or contributed to the dismissal, and the employer does not need to have been aware of it at the time. 
• The compensatory award, on the other hand, must be reduced where the employee’s actions contributed to or caused their dismissal to any extent. Any reduction will be based on what the Tribunal considers just and equitable based on its findings.  Because this type of reduction is linked to the dismissal itself, the employer must have known about the conduct. The Employment Appeal Tribunal in this case made the point that it can include behaviour that influenced the employer’s decision to uphold the dismissal on appeal, as the appeal process forms part of the overall dismissal. 
  

Article written by
Sally Eastwood

At Springhouse Solicitors we offer a range of services, so please contact our friendly customer services team to discuss further via  hello@kilgannonlaw.co.uk or  0800 915 7777.

Disclaimer 

The above provides a general overview of areas in employment law and is not intended nor construed as providing specific legal advice.  This article is for information purposes only and is correct at the time of publication. It does not constitute legal advice.

22.06.26