Employers are faced with an unenviable task when tackling ‘banter’ in the workplace. There is always a fine line between banter and potential bullying and harassment. Any notion of banning ‘banter’ altogether is unlikely to be sustainable, or well received, in practice. In-jokes and ‘friendly banter’ are, to an extent, human nature and an important part of employee interaction and office culture.
A zero-tolerance approach might also raise some legal issues as evidenced in the recent case of Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd.
Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd.
In this case, Mr Richardson left a tarantula skin and snakeskin in the pigeonhole of a colleague who, he knew, disliked spiders and snakes and he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
The tribunal held he had been unfairly dismissed and re-instated him. Though they acknowledged that his conduct was misconduct, they thought it wasn’t serious enough to amount to gross misconduct and to justify being fired.
The tribunal in Richardson provided some helpful guidance on acceptable ‘banter’ for both employers and employees:
- Context matters
- Employers should seek to understand the employee’s motivation in performing the prank
- Continuing a prank after being asked to stop could be a more serious offence than the prank itself.
Employers who are faced with a misconduct allegation which has its roots in ‘banter’ should take account of these tips when considering the most appropriate sanction.
If you enjoyed this blog then perhaps you’d like to sign up to our monthly newsletter. We’ll keep you updated on what’s new in employment law.
