Unsuccessful for claims of unfair dismissal

Apprentice with ADHD unsuccessful for claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination

The tribunal in the recent case of Forrester Hayes v Scania (Great Britain) Ltd dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, despite it being argued by Forrester that his alleged misconduct was a result of his ADHD.

Forrester Hayes was employed as an Apprentice Technician in February 2020, working alongside other young apprentices and technicians. It was noted that there was a culture of “banter” and “pranking” between the apprentices.

In February 2021, in retaliation for a prank by Forrester Hayes, a colleague wrapped one of Forrester Hayes’ tools in electrical tape.

In response, Forrester Hayes grabbed and held the colleague before hitting him.

Both were suspended and later issued with a nine-month final written warning.

Wilkinson, who was Forrester Hayes’ manager, stated that this behaviour would’ve normally led to dismissal, but, due to their age and naivety, he would offer them a second chance.

In July 2023, there was another incident where Forrester Hayes’ lunch had been messed with, making it inedible.

In response, Forrester Hayes sent aggressive and threatening messages to colleagues online.

Another colleague had also recorded Forrester Hayes making threats about the person whom he suspected had tampered with his lunch.

Forrester Hayes had reported the incident, but the Company were unable to identify the perpetrator.

However, Scania later became aware of the messages and threats made by Forrester Hayes following the incident.

Forrester Hayes argued that his response to the incident was a result of his ADHD, which the Company was aware of, and he argued that his ADHD made him impulsive and susceptible to feeling intense emotions and frustration.

Forrester Hayes was suspended during disciplinary proceedings and later referred to Occupational Health by the Company, who suggested that his ADHD would not impair his ability to know right from wrong.

Following the disciplinary hearing, Forrester Hayes was dismissed, as it was suggested that the ongoing threats and aggression in response to the incident went beyond an impulsive and reactive response.

Forrester Hayes brought claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and disability harassment, which were all dismissed by the tribunal.

The tribunal agreed that, while the messages might have been a consequence of ADHD impulsivity, the dismissal of Forrester Hayes was a proportionate means to protect Scania’s staff.

They also agreed that, given the number of messages sent and the content of these messages, and the other threats made, this suggested that it was not simply a heat-of-the-moment reaction.

This case does suggest that bad behaviour resulting from ADHD may still be subject to disciplinary proceedings, or even dismissal, but there must be a clear process shown by employers, and Occupational Health should be used to assess the impact of any such condition on the behaviours displayed.

In this case, Scania already had a final written warning on file and had consulted with Occupational Health in regard to Forrester Hayes’ ADHD, before conducting the disciplinary.