A 21-year-old garage apprentice has lost an employment tribunal claim for unfair dismissal after threatening a colleague over alleged tampering with his lunch at work.
Brooklyn Forrester-Hayes, who worked at the Scania truck depot in Swindon, claimed he was unfairly dismissed after reacting to what he believed was a prank by another apprentice.
The incident took place in July 2023 when Forrester-Hayes discovered damage to his lunch, including finger-sized holes in his sandwiches, smashed crisps and scattered tea leaves. He accused a colleague of interfering with his food and sent threatening messages to several co-workers demanding someone take responsibility.
The tribunal heard that although the workplace had a “culture of pranks and banter” among apprentices, Scania dismissed Forrester-Hayes after reviewing abusive messages he had sent. The company concluded that his behaviour was a serious breach of conduct and posed a risk to other employees.
 |
Get our essential daily HR news and updates. |
Forrester-Hayes brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments for his ADHD. All claims were rejected by the Bristol employment tribunal, which ruled that the employer had acted within its rights in deciding dismissal was a necessary step.
Prior warnings and workplace culture
Forrester-Hayes began his role at the Scania depot in February 2020, joining as an apprentice technician at the age of 16. The tribunal heard that there was a longstanding pattern of practical jokes and interference with colleagues’ tools and belongings among the apprentice group.
He had previously received a final written warning in 2021 following another workplace altercation. During that incident, Forrester-Hayes physically grabbed a colleague by the collar in response to a prank involving one of his tools being wrapped in electrical tape. A supervisor intervened and disciplinary action was taken.
In the July 2023 incident, Forrester-Hayes went to the tea room shortly after starting his shift and found that his lunch had been tampered with. According to tribunal documents, his sandwich box had been opened, chocolate bars and crisps damaged and teabags scattered in the bag.
Feeling frustrated and without food for the rest of the day, he threw the contents in the bin and began questioning colleagues. He assumed the person responsible was one of the apprentices who had worked the earlier shift and made a series of verbal and written threats.
Forrester-Hayes then told a colleague in the tea room, “I am going to fuck him up for it”. He then added, “If I see his fucking toolbox open tomorrow – I’m going to fuck everything up in there.”
He also sent a Snapchat message to another apprentice, stating: “If i find out it was u … ur toolbox is fucked. If it was u ur paying for my lunch if u dont ill cut ur tyre valves off … simple.”
Tribunal rules dismissal a proportionate response
After the incident was reported to a foreman the next day, Scania began an internal investigation. Colleagues confirmed that Forrester-Hayes had been sending aggressive messages, though no one admitted to tampering with the lunch. He was suspended and later dismissed.
During the hearing, Forrester-Hayes said that his ADHD made him act impulsively and that he did not think through the consequences of his messages. He also claimed that the employer had failed to take his condition into account and had not made reasonable adjustments.
However, the tribunal concluded that while his condition was considered, the threats were serious and the employer was entitled to view the behaviour as grounds for dismissal. The ruling stated that “dismissal was necessary to protect employees” and that the company had followed a fair process in reaching its decision.
All claims brought by Forrester-Hayes were dismissed, including those for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, disability discrimination and harassment.
Cases like this are an example of the importance of maintaining professional conduct in the workplace and the limitations of informal cultures where behaviour may cross into unacceptable territory, escalating into grievances, claims of harassment or even legal action.
