I would like to focus on what this disciplinary really comes down to: a few missed scratch marks — on a part of the reach truck where scratches are always expected.

Every reach truck we’ve ever had picks up scuffs in the same place, especially on the top guard. And that’s no surprise, considering we’re regularly told to drive double reach trucks down aisles that are clearly too narrow. So yes, scratches happen — it’s predictable. We can’t ignore the unrealistic operating space we put colleagues in and then punish them when that results in wear and tear.

It’s important to acknowledge what’s reasonable here. This wasn’t a safety-critical fault. It was a cosmetic mark on a known scuff zone — something you’d find on every truck we own. If the equipment wasn’t brand new, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Let me give you a simple example. When you walk into the building and glance at the notice boards, how many pieces of paper are up there? Loads. And when one changes, how many people actually notice the difference? Very Few, unless its pointed out to us, even then its not obvious to spot — because the human brain doesn’t work like that. It fills in little blanks. We become blind to the details we see every single day. We look for big, obvious changes — not tiny details.

It’s the same principle here. Lynden checked the truck — he didn’t ignore it — but he missed something that didn’t stand out. That’s not negligence. That’s not misconduct. That’s being human. Some people will notice a new mark that others don’t. That’s just human nature.

Expecting every single driver to spot and report every new scratch on every truck, every day, is unrealistic. And it’s not consistent with how these checks are actually handled. For example, the first question on the Optafleet checklist asks about dirt or dust. I used to tick “Yes” for that every single day — because they’re all dusty. But I was specifically told to stop ticking it, because it kept flagging the system unnecessarily. That tells me there’s already a grey area in how we’re expected to use these checks. The answers are open to interpretation — and we’re expected to use judgement.

We’re also sometimes told to report certain issues directly to management instead of logging them on Optafleet — especially when it’s something seen as a “running error.” That’s because if it’s recorded on the system, it can trigger a VOR and unnecessarily take the MHE out of use. That alone shows the process isn’t black and white — it relies on discretion, context, and judgement.

Lynden used his judgement. In this case, it was off — he missed something. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t do the check. And it certainly doesn’t mean it was a health and safety breach.

Let’s also not forget — this mark had already been reported by someone else. That means the company was aware of it, and the truck was kept in service. So if this was truly seen as a safety issue or significant damage, why wasn’t it VOR’d when it was first noticed?

I’d also like to clarify another issue — how Lynden’s final warning has been brought into this. In the investigation notes, it’s described as being for “misuse of MHE” — but that’s incorrect. The warning on his record was for checking his phone while stationary, with the handbrake on, after explaining he was worried about his gran’s health — something the company is well aware of, as he’s had authorised time off related to it.

I’m not here to challenge that decision — it’s already been made. But it matters because it’s unrelated. That final warning has nothing to do with safety checks or equipment damage, and Lynden has never been challenged for skipping checks, ignoring damage, or being careless. This is the first time. You can’t treat this as a repeat offence when it’s a completely different issue.

Also, let’s look at the timeline. This happened on a Wednesday morning. Lynden was on the truck briefly the day before — Tuesday morning for around an hour. It’s entirely possible someone else used it between then and the next shift. There’s no evidence Lynden caused the damage — only that he didn’t report it. And again: the damage had already been seen, and the truck remained in use.

So we have to ask ourselves:

• Was there a safety risk? No.

• Was there new, unreported damage? No — it had already been acknowledged.

• Is there any evidence Lynden caused the damage? No.

• Is it reasonable to expect someone to spot every cosmetic scratch on a known scuff area? Also no.

This isn’t a safety breach. It’s not gross misconduct. It’s not dishonesty. It’s a human oversight — one that could’ve been addressed with a quick conversation, not a disciplinary. And certainly not one that justifies dismissal.