In the recent case of Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd 2023, the Employment Tribunal (ET) dealt with the subject of dismissal for pranks and banter at work. Following the hearing, the ET reinstated the employee and awarded him £40,000 damages for unfair and unlawful dismissal for performing two pranks on a work colleague.
Richardson v West Midlands Trains – The Background
The case involved two pranks being carried out by the claimant against the victim – who was known to dislike and feel squeamish towards insects and creepy-crawlies. Hoping to shock and cause a reaction, albeit with eventual relief, the claimant placed a shed spider exoskeleton in his work pigeonhole. On finding this, the victim was distressed and required another colleague to remove it.
Following this, there was an argument between the two parties – after which the claimant raised the possibility of leaving a shed snakeskin. He was urged not to repeat the prank, but took these comments as pure banter, and decided to carry out the prank regardless. The second incident again distressed the employee – who reported it to the manager. Following disciplinary action, the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
Richardson v West Midlands Trains – The Decision
The tribunal found these pranks as ‘harmless’ and ‘childish’, and ruled that they did not amount to gross misconduct. As such, the claimant was dismissed unfairly. The ET issued guidance on the matter; namely to see if the prank had the effect of causing harm or interrupting business, whether the incidents were abusive, as well as taking into account when and where the pranks took place.
The ET did acknowledge that pranks can be considered as ‘bullying’ because their aim was to: “…cause a degree of upset and discomfort, albeit temporary.” This would constitute misconduct and warrant disciplinary action. Continuing to perform pranks despite being asked to stop may be more serious than the prank itself, unless the prank was intended to cause harm or distress.
Guidance for Employers on Pranks and Banter at Work
Before deciding how to deal with such pranks, employers need to ask: what was the intention or motivation of the perpetrator out carrying out the pranks? What was the impact on the victim? Has the business been adversely affected by the incident? Have working relationships been affected by the prank?
On this occasion, the ET ruled that the conduct was ‘harmless’ and ‘childish’ and the employer’s decision to dismiss was unfair. This ruling demonstrates that banter and pranks at work are not explicitly banned, and it recognises the fact that an environment where colleagues can joke with each other is an important aspect of work. Despite this, employees should tread carefully, and employers should not treat all pranks as gross misconduct.
