Cases1406262/2023

Claimant v Scania (Great Britain) Ltd

18 March 2025Before Employment Judge FergusonBristolhybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the employer held a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. The dismissal for gross misconduct (threatening messages to colleagues) fell within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant's ADHD was considered but did not excuse multiple threatening messages sent over 10-15 minutes to more than one colleague, particularly given a prior final written warning for similar conduct.

Wrongful Dismissalfailed

The tribunal was satisfied the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct under the disciplinary policy (threatening colleagues and their property), entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice.

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The claimant failed to prove facts from which the tribunal could conclude the conduct complained of (lunchbox tampering, investigation, dismissal) was because of his ADHD. The ADHD was treated as a possible mitigating factor, meaning someone without ADHD behaving the same way would also have been dismissed. No less favourable treatment established.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The tribunal accepted the threatening messages arose in consequence of the claimant's ADHD (impulsivity), but found the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting staff. The claimant bore some responsibility despite his ADHD; he sent multiple messages over time to more than one person; he had a prior final written warning; and the respondent had a duty to protect employees from threats.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The claimant failed to establish the alleged PCP (zero tolerance policy leading to automatic dismissal) existed. The respondent had previously given the claimant a final written warning rather than dismissing him, and the dismissing manager considered the appropriate sanction rather than applying a blanket policy.

Harassment(disability)failed

The claimant did not prove facts from which the tribunal could conclude the lunchbox tampering, video recording, or investigation were unwanted conduct related to his disability. There was no evidence the pranks targeted his ADHD; they were part of a general workplace culture of banter.

Facts

The claimant, a 19-year-old apprentice technician with ADHD, was nearing completion of his apprenticeship when a colleague tampered with his lunchbox, smashing food and poking holes in sandwiches. The claimant immediately sent multiple threatening Snapchat messages over 10-15 minutes to colleagues on the previous shift, including threats to damage a colleague's toolbox and cut bicycle tyre valves. He was suspended, investigated, and dismissed for gross misconduct. The claimant had a prior final written warning from 2021 for grabbing a colleague by the collar during a dispute.

Decision

All claims were dismissed. The tribunal accepted the threatening messages arose in consequence of the claimant's ADHD-related impulsivity, but found dismissal was a proportionate means of protecting employees and fell within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant bore some responsibility despite his disability, particularly given multiple messages, a prior warning, and the seriousness of threatening colleagues' property.

Practical note

ADHD-related impulsivity may explain threatening conduct, but does not necessarily excuse it where an employee sent multiple threats over time, had a prior warning, and the employer needs to protect other staff from serious threats.

Legal authorities cited

BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh 2018 IRLR 1090Smith v Churchills Stairlifts [2006] ICR 524Gray v University of Portsmouth (EAT 0242/20)Hardy & Hansons plc v Lax 2005 ICR 1565Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.20Equality Act 2010 s.21Equality Act 2010 s.39Equality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.136Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.15

Case details

Case number
1406262/2023
Decision date
18 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Apprentice Technician
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister