DPD has been accused of “revenge sackings” after terminating contracts with eight drivers it deemed “ringleaders” of the unprecedented mass walkout that saw 1,500 couriers down tools in October over devastating pay cuts.
The delivery giant, which reported pre-tax profits of nearly £200 million last year whilst its highest-earning director took home £1.5 million including bonuses, has fired drivers for allegedly breaching gagging clauses in their contracts by speaking out about the cuts.
In at least one case, DPD has threatened to withhold deposits worth £16,000 to cover the “costs” of finding replacement drivers, exposing the precarious position of self-employed couriers who lack basic employment protections despite doing the actual work of delivering parcels.
The sackings come just weeks after DPD agreed to delay implementation of the 65p per parcel rate cut until January 5th following the October 7-9th walkout that caused widespread service disruptions across hundreds of postcodes.
The Gagging Clause Being Used to Silence Drivers
Dean Hawkins, one of the drivers fired by DPD, was involved in organising the October walkout and was told by management he’d been dismissed for breaching a clause prohibiting involvement in “any newsworthy event or story or anything which would or in [DPD’s] opinion could damage [the firm’s] interests or reputation.”
The evidence used against him was a Facebook post he’d written around the time the rate cuts emerged, in which he stated: “Any threats of a strike or legal action, you’re terminated, DPD don’t allow you to stand up for yourself or have a voice … This is why so many drivers across the UK are looking into striking, because God forbid we ask for a fair wage to support our families.”
Hawkins argues his dismissal was unfair because it was DPD’s decision to slash driver pay, not his commentary about it, that created the “newsworthy event” and damaged the company’s reputation.
Leading employment law barrister and Labour peer John Hendy KC agreed with this assessment, telling the Guardian: “Absolutely. It’s their action which has damaged their reputation, not the action of those who’ve reports of it.”
The fact that DPD is using contractual clauses to punish drivers for publicly discussing pay cuts that could cost them over £6,000 annually reveals how one-sided the power dynamic has become between courier companies and the self-employed workers who make their business model function.
The £16,000 Deposit Being Held Hostage
Another dismissed driver, Jose Alves, who runs a fleet of vans for DPD as a multi-route franchise operator, was told the company reserved the right to keep some or all of the £16,000 in deposits he’d handed over when his contracts started.
DPD justified this by claiming it would have “incurred costs by spending time sharing with you the benefit of our knowledge, skill and experience” and that it would “also spend time and money finding a replacement for you.”
The company stated: “If that happens, we may keep your deposit to cover these costs.”
This represents a staggering admission that DPD views driver deposits not as security against vehicle damage or contract breaches, but as a fund it can dip into whenever it decides to terminate someone’s contract for speaking out about working conditions.
Alves has asked DPD to provide evidence of the alleged breach that led to his dismissal, but has received none thus far, raising questions about whether the company is simply using vague contractual language to punish drivers it views as troublemakers.
DPD stated that “with any case of supplier breach of contract, it is our normal procedure to hold on to the deposit for up to 30 days to allow for vehicles to be returned and assessed for damage,” claiming deposits would be returned in full “unless there is damage.”
But the initial threat to keep deposits to cover “costs” of finding replacements suggests the company is reserving the right to interpret these clauses however suits its interests at any given moment.
The Employment Law Gap That Leaves Drivers Unprotected
John Hendy KC highlighted a critical gap in UK employment law that allows companies like DPD to fire self-employed contractors for organising collective action against pay cuts.
“The protection against dismissal or detriment for trade union activities only applies to the activities of an independent trade union,” he explained, noting that the DPD drivers may not enjoy such protected status.
He called for urgent law reform, stating: “This reveals a deficiency in the existing legislation which the government should consider fulfilling. Penalising workers for making representations against detrimental changes to their terms and conditions is, quite simply, outrageous. It should be unlawful.”
The fact that 1,500 drivers felt compelled to stage an unprecedented mass walkout over pay cuts that could cost them up to £8,000 annually demonstrates the collective nature of their grievance.
But because they operate as self-employed contractors rather than traditional employees, they lack the union protections and unfair dismissal rights that would prevent a company from simply firing the people it deems responsible for organising the action.
This creates a chilling effect where drivers know that speaking out about working conditions or coordinating with colleagues could result in immediate contract termination, leaving them with no recourse and potentially losing thousands in withheld deposits.
The Pattern of “Revenge Sackings” Following Industrial Action
DPD confirmed it had “terminated our relationship with eight supplier companies following a breach of contract” but provided no details about what specific breaches had occurred or why these particular drivers were targeted.
The timing, coming just weeks after the mass walkout that forced DPD to delay its rate cuts until after Christmas, strongly suggests the dismissals are retaliation for organising collective action rather than genuine contract violations.
One driver told the Guardian: “Now that we have shown them up publicly they’re just trying to assert dominance and trying to control the free will of drivers they don’t want to employ. It’s a revenge act to assert dominance for us humiliating them.”
The eight terminations will likely affect far more than eight individual workers because DPD’s pool of self-employed drivers includes both individual owner-driver franchises and multi-route franchise operators who run fleets of vans, meaning some of those fired may have employed multiple drivers who will now also lose work.
For the remaining drivers who participated in the October walkout but haven’t been fired, the message is clear: keep your head down and accept whatever pay cuts the company imposes, or risk joining the eight who’ve been made examples of.
The £200 Million Profit Company Punishing Drivers Over £6,000 Losses
The cruel irony of DPD firing drivers for organising against pay cuts becomes even starker when you remember the company’s recent financial performance.
DPD reported pre-tax profits of nearly £200 million last year whilst awarding its highest-earning director nearly £1.5 million including bonuses, representing a pay rise of over £90,000 from the previous year.
Meanwhile, the drivers being fired for protesting pay cuts face annual losses of over £6,000 from the combination of reduced per-parcel rates and the scrapped £500 Christmas bonus.
As one driver representative put it during the October walkout: “We don’t get holiday pay, we don’t get sick pay. So, even before the rate cuts, you still weren’t able to afford a family holiday or any time off. To make ends meet, you had to work the full five days a week, 10 hours a day. And that’s pretty much just to get by.”
He continued: “That doesn’t leave anything for savings, that doesn’t leave anything for a family holiday. We’ve not had a holiday for the last four years, just because we can’t afford it.”
These aren’t workers asking for luxuries. They’re describing basic financial survival becoming impossible whilst company directors award themselves six-figure bonuses and the company celebrates record profits.
And now they’re being fired for having the audacity to say so publicly.
What This Means for the Drivers Facing January Rate Cuts
The dismissal of eight drivers deemed “ringleaders” of the October walkout sends a chilling message to the 1,500 couriers who participated in the action and the thousands more who will be affected when the rate cuts are implemented on January 5th.
DPD has made it clear that organising collective action, speaking publicly about working conditions, or coordinating with fellow drivers to resist pay cuts will result in immediate contract termination and potentially the loss of thousands in withheld deposits.
Come January, drivers will face the same stark choice they confronted in October, accept pay cuts that make their work financially unviable or walk away from contracts they’ve built their livelihoods around.
But now they’ll do so knowing that resistance comes with the added risk of being labelled a troublemaker, fired for alleged contract breaches, and potentially losing substantial deposits with no recourse or protection.
For a company reporting £200 million in pre-tax profits, the decision to fire drivers for protesting £6,000 annual pay cuts whilst directors celebrate £90,000 pay rises exposes exactly who’s valued and who’s expendable in the modern courier industry.
DPD’s dismissal of drivers for organising against devastating pay cuts, whilst threatening to withhold thousands in deposits and invoking gagging clauses to silence criticism, reveals the brutal power imbalance between profitable courier companies and the self-employed workers who lack basic employment protections despite making the entire business model function.
Want to know more about delivery companies and how they’re performing?
Check out our courier information section or browse our retailer guides to see which delivery companies your favourite shops are using.
