Apprentice with ADHD who threatened colleagues after a prank was fairly dismissed

A recent tribunal case has shown that ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is not satisfactory mitigation for an employee threatening their working colleagues, even when there has been provocation. This case is an indicator that individual conduct in the workplace is a choice and employers can take proportionate action when misconduct occurs.

In the case an apprentice technician at Scania (Great Britain) claimed his ADHD contributed to threats he made to colleagues after his sandwiches had holes poked in them and his packet of crisps was crushed.

The employee was not able to determine who had damaged his lunch but still sent threating messages to those he thought responsible. He told one colleague on Snapchat that if he found out they were responsible then he would destroy the tools in their toolbox and cut the tyre valves on their bike.

At tribunal, the apprentice claimed his ADHD meant he may react “impulsively” and experience “high levels of frustration” and more intense emotions in certain situations.

The employer investigated the threats and called the employee to a disciplinary hearing. At the hearing the apprentice claimed he had no intention of carrying out the threats. But the disciplinary hearing manager explained that the colleague receiving the messages would have no idea that he did not intend to carry out the threats.

The hearing manager found the apprentice’s conduct to be in breach of the company values of “respect of the individual” and “dignity at work.” The manager found the conduct to be a serious act of gross misconduct and informed the apprentice his actions were a breach of the company policy of “zero tolerance to any kind of threats being made to any employees.” Scania’s disciplinary policy listed “threatening behaviour towards another person” as gross misconduct and the employee was dismissed.

Referring to the apprentice’s ADHD the manager said the persistence in pursuing the issue of the lunch being damaged over a two day period indicated that his threat to colleagues “on Snapchat was not merely a reactive response to the situation you were in.”

Tribunal decision

The tribunal fully found in favour of the employer. It ruled the apprentice had sought to attribute the misconduct to his disability but in reality the actions were “unacceptable” and the dismissal was necessary to protect employees. The tribunal acknowledged the diagnosis of ADHD but stated this did not mean the employee could “bear no responsibility for his actions.”

The tribunal accepted that there had been provocation but stated it was up to the apprentice to find ways to ensure his impulsivity does not result in unacceptable behaviour that impacts on colleagues.

The judge added that “adult, professional behaviour involves being able to manage conflict at work, including unacceptable or unfair treatment, without resorting to violence or threats to others or their property.”

The judge found that the employer’s decision to dismiss was proportionate given the nature of the serious threatening messages that had been sent to colleagues.

Learning for employers

The key point from this case is that it can be reasonable for employers to take disciplinary action when an employee blames poor conduct on impulsiveness resulting from their ADHD (but any sanction must be based on the facts of the case). Other points to note include:

• Neurodiverse conditions may in some ways explain bad impulsive behaviour but that does not mean it cannot be addressed by an employer. Employers do need appropriate reasons for addressing behaviour but where the behaviours is threatening to others this crosses a line of acceptability.

• ADHD is likely to be a disability which requires employers to make reasonable adjustments. But when threatening behaviour occurs, employers have a duty to prioritise the safety of employees above all else.

• The case reminds employers of the lines that should not be crossed if there is a culture of banter. Banter must be within the boundaries set by your company values and your company policies.

• Provide ongoing education and refresher training for all employees on the boundaries set out by your policies to prevent banter from escalating.