An employment tribunal has ruled against a garage apprentice who said his ADHD caused him to be unfairly dismissed from his job after a colleague had tampered with his lunch.
Claimant BFH, 21, was dismissed from his job as an apprentice technician at the Scania depot in Swindon after he sent “abusive messages” to a person he thought had pranked him by “smashing his crisps” and poking “finger-sized holes through his sandwiches” in July 2023.
The incident was filmed by a colleague, MS, but Scania supervisors claimed that because they did not know who had interfered with BFH’s lunch, it could not take action.
Tribunal claims
Latest employment tribunal news
Police sergeant’s ‘scattergun’ allegations dismissed by tribunal
Engineer awarded £25k after employer ‘trespassed’ his home
Nurse left out of tea round wins constructive dismissal claim
BFH claimed managers did not take his ADHD into account, and so his dismissal was unfair. But the tribunal ruled bosses were entitled to conclude his behaviour was unacceptable.
His claims of disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment because of his condition were also dismissed.
BFH began working at the depot in February 2020 when he was 16 years old.
The tribunal heard that the apprentices at the site often pranked each other, interfering with each other’s tools.
The claimant was handed a final written warning in 2021 after he angrily reacted to one of his tools being wrapped in electrical tape by a colleague.
He “grabbed him by the collar and held on to him” before a supervisor intervened, the tribunal was told, but because the claimant was honest and apologetic and wrote to explain his error during the investigation he was not dismissed.
Crushed crisps
Shortly after starting a shift in July 2023, BFH discovered someone had crushed his crisps and chocolate bars, poked finger-sized holes through his sandwiches and opened tea bags before sprinkling tea leaves over his lunch bag.
BFH said he was “upset, dismayed and angry, and now had no food until he got home”. After throwing what was left of his lunch away, he went to report the incident, the tribunal heard.
He then indirectly threatened to harm the person he believed was responsible and made threats on Snapchat towards him. Later, however, he apologised to the colleague he’d accused.
Gurpreet Virk, people business partner, advised that the claimant needed to be suspended. She wrote: “As disappointing as it is that someone has done this to the lunch, we cannot condone threatening behaviour and based on what I have read he is a threat to our employees and potentially himself if this escalated further.”
Virk spoke to the claimant’s mother, who said he had had an ADHD diagnosis for many years and had intermittently taken medication for it. Virk then began to make arrangements for an OH referral.
Difficulty controlling emotions
As the incident was investigated, the claimant wrote to one of the managers involved, informing him of his ADHD and explaining his difficulty in controlling emotions. He wrote: “I find this hard to deal with at times and have suffered many years at school with ADHD to which I keep this to myself as much as I can to try and fit in and hopefully this will help to understand my reactions at times and as Scania have a Equal Opportunities policy … I would like this to be fully noted on this occasion.”
He was suspended when the threats he had made after the lunch incident came to light, and then dismissed after further investigation.
Although the claimant had agreed that his threats were unacceptable and wrong, manager Craig Sutton decided to dismiss him because OH had agreed BFH did know the difference between right and wrong and had made repeated threats, so weakening his claim of impulsive behaviour. The apology from BHF was taken into account but Sutton said he could not be sure a similar incident would not happen again.
The tribunal ruled that “dismissal was necessary to protect employees”. The judge wrote: “There is no basis on which I could find that the claimant was treated less favourably because of his ADHD. The ADHD was treated as a possible mitigating factor. It must follow that someone without ADHD who had behaved in the same way would certainly also have been dismissed.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
