Pay back for the work clowns

[stihlmadasever]

Don't worry Jon, they're 'arder than us, but we tan wayyy better.

 

We dont get the sun up ere...suns for southerners:thumbup:

[stihlmadasever]

I lived "north of the border" for 3 years. Soft southerner indeed.

 

How did I survive in Eritrea?

 

Slurpin tea and dunkin biscuits...

[fritz423]

If I may intrude, the proper revenge for a prank is to pour 100 cc's of magnesium citrate into a coworker's thermos.

 

Tasteless, odorless, this causes 6 hours of remorseless bowel evacuation.

[treequip]

Don't worry Jon, they're 'arder than us, but we tan wayyy better.

 

When a northerner goes brown its usually caused by rust

[R Mac]

Practical jokes are ok up to a point, if it's relentless and the OP is the only one being subjected to it then it's gone beyond practical joke level, basically it's bullying and if it isn't stopped it'll escalate until someone gets hurt and if it's serious nobody will have seen anything.

 

My initial reaction was to suggest the direct approach, warn the main protagonist off and then back it it if need be but I have to agree with TCD up to a point, unfortunately these days people like to be the big tough guy until someone bites back, then they'll run to court.

 

As for people getting precious about their lunch, yeah I agree, (don't touch my equipment or my lunch either) but if you've been making someones life a misery and they spike your lunch you deserve all you get so suck it up.

 

While I'm not exactly advising a course of action to the OP my approach would be a quiet, serious warning to the perpetrator and then next time it happened I'd take direct and immediate action.

 

Probably the best course of action is to report it, that way if you're pushed to the limit you have covered your arse to a degree but that may well result in being labelled a tout and an increase in both the practical jokes and being isolated generally.

 

Tough Call.

[Mick Dempsey]

Practical jokes are ok up to a point, if it's relentless and the OP is the only one being subjected to it then it's gone beyond practical joke level, basically it's bullying and if it isn't stopped it'll escalate until someone gets hurt and if it's serious nobody will have seen anything.

 

My initial reaction was to suggest the direct approach, warn the main protagonist off and then back it it if need be but I have to agree with TCD up to a point, unfortunately these days people like to be the big tough guy until someone bites back, then they'll run to court.

 

As for people getting precious about their lunch, yeah I agree, (don't touch my equipment or my lunch either) but if you've been making someones life a misery and they spike your lunch you deserve all you get so suck it up.

 

While I'm not exactly advising a course of action to the OP my approach would be a quiet, serious warning to the perpetrator and then next time it happened I'd take direct and immediate action.

 

Probably the best course of action is to report it, that way if you're pushed to the limit you have covered your arse to a degree but that may well result in being labelled a tout and an increase in both the practical jokes and being isolated generally.

 

Tough Call.

 

Therein lies the rub for me.

 

We're not talking about 15 year old boys at school, it's about grown men at work.

Everyone should have the right to do their job without having to be part of the gang or join in with the laughs.

[Stock]

Right so lets leave the criminal assault aside as that would be between the parties involved.

Now one needs to look at this from the owner/ employer and if it can be proven that they had knowledge of the clowning around going on and didn't address the issue then vicarious liability will apply.

So here is some light reading for you,

 

 

April Fool’s Day: when workplace pranks go wrong

By Stephen Simpson on 1 Apr 2015 in Bullying and harassment, Case law, Dismissal, Unfair dismissal, Violence at work

april-fools-workplace-pranks

 

Workplace pranks are harmless fun most of the time, but there are occasions when a practical joke in the workplace can have serious consequences for both employers and employees.

 

Stephen Simpson rounds up seven employment law cases in which workplace pranks led to legal action, including allegations of misconduct leading to dismissal, harassment against colleagues and serious injury for which the employer could be liable.

 

Employer not liable after employee set fire to colleague during “horseplay"

 

[B]Graham v Commercial Bodyworks Ltd (Court of Appeal)[/b]

 

In this 2015 decision, the Court of Appeal held that an employer could not be held liable for injuries caused by a prank gone wrong in the workplace after one employee set fire to another during “horseplay”.

 

Two workers in a bodywork repair shop were joking about when one set fire to the other with a cigarette lighter and flammable thinning agent, causing serious injury. The worker who was injured claimed that his employer was liable to compensate him for the injuries caused by the perpetrator’s actions.

 

The Court of Appeal reviewed the case law on employer liability for employees’ acts of violence and concluded that “frolicsome but reckless conduct” cannot normally be said to have occurred in the course of employment, meaning that it was inappropriate to impose liability on the employer in this case.

 

Workplace pranks: a history of violence

 

It has long been established that employers can avoid liability for practical jokes in the workplace if they can show that the jokers were acting on a “frolic of their own”, for example by doing something totally unconnected with work.

 

Two contrasting cases from the 1950s show this principle in action:

 

Smith v Crossley Brothers (Court of Appeal, 1951)

 

As a “practical joke”, two mechanics removed a colleague’s trousers and inserted a rubber hose into his bottom. The rubber hose expelled compressed air, causing serious injury.

 

The Court of Appeal found that the employer was not liable for the resulting injuries as there was nothing that the employer could have done to prevent such unpredictable actions.

 

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd (Court of Assizes, 1957)

 

An employee’s wrist was broken when a colleague wrestled him to the ground as a practical joke. The colleague was a known practical joker and had a reputation for playing pranks. The employer had been aware of this for years.

 

The employer was found to be liable for the injury because it was obvious that the joker posed a danger, but it had done nothing to prevent him from committing further pranks.

 

Male manager fairly dismissed for “attempting to touch a colleague’s testicles and bottom”

 

Charlton v Orange PCS Ltd (employment tribunal)

 

A sales manager at a call centre was accused of attempting to touch a colleague’s testicles and bottom. The two men had a history of conflict.

 

The sales manager denied that he had done this, although he did admit that he liked “pranks” and could not rule out that he had made a “rugby gesture”.

 

The manager was dismissed and claimed unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal rejected his claim, deciding that the employer had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds that the claimant was guilty of the alleged misconduct, and had carried out a fair disciplinary procedure.

 

Manager’s wheelie-bin prank recorded on CCTV

 

Adamson v Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd (employment tribunal)

 

An employee’s workplace prank can undermine the employer’s trust and confidence in him or her, and warrant summary dismissal, as this case demonstrates.

 

A large company dismissed the pub manager of one of its flagship venues. He was recorded on CCTV being pushed around in a wheelie bin by a female colleague. He fell out of the bin and embraced the woman. Damage to a door was later discovered.

 

The employment tribunal concluded that, although the manager was apologetic and admitted that getting into the wheelie bin was “a ridiculously stupid act”, his dismissal was fair because the employer had lost all trust and confidence in him to manage the premises on its behalf.

 

Sabotage of heterosexual employee’s Facebook page to suggest he is gay was sexual orientation harassment

 

Otomewo v Carphone Warehouse Ltd (employment tribunal)

 

This case is a good example of how a practical joke in the workplace can have a sinister discriminatory undertone. It is also a reminder that it is possible for a heterosexual employee to be subjected to sexual orientation discrimination, even if the harasser knows that the employee is not gay.

 

Two members of staff took a heterosexual manager’s phone without his permission and updated his Facebook status to saying: “Finally came out the closet. I am gay and proud.” His colleagues knew that he is not gay.

 

The employment tribunal upheld the manager’s sexual orientation discrimination claim, concluding that the employer could be liable for the entries made on the phone. The entries had been made by its employees in the course of their employment. The employees’ actions took place at work and during working hours, and involved dealings between staff and their manager.

 

Suggestion that toy helicopter be landed on employee’s turban was harassment

 

Bal v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jobcentre Plus) (employment tribunal)

 

It is possible for an employee’s threat of a prank, without the joke actually being carried out, to be sufficient to create problems for the employer.

 

The claimant in this case is Sikh, and wears a turban. A radio-controlled toy helicopter was being flown around the office and being landed on various flat surfaces. Someone suggested that the toy helicopter be landed on the claimant’s turban.

 

The claimant brought a claim for religion or belief discrimination for various alleged incidents, including the toy helicopter incident. The employment tribunal upheld the claim, considering that an individual’s wearing of a turban is inherently connected with religion and, regardless of the intentions of the alleged harasser, the actions were discriminatory.

 

“Full-blown moony” constituted sexual harassment

AM v GF and another (employment tribunal)

 

As with so many discrimination cases, this decision involves a “joke” that went badly wrong.

 

In a workplace in which “banter” and joking were commonplace, a female employee complained of an incident in which a male colleague “dropped his trousers, bent over with his hands on his knees, and was shaking his bottom”.

 

The employment tribunal held that, although there was evidence of a history of joking and that mooning was a “way of life” in this workplace and was used as a morale booster, the claimant’s colleague’s actions were unwanted and of a sexual nature. The tribunal upheld her sexual harassment claim.

 

Age-related practical jokes among evidence of age bias against older worker

 

Nolan v CD Bramall Dealership Ltd t/a Evans Halshaw Motorhouse Worksop (employment tribunal)

 

Sometimes, a series of practical jokes that would not by themselves be viewed as serious can be used as evidence that there is something more serious behind employees’ attitudes to a colleague.

 

In this case, the employment tribunal held that the employer discriminated against the claimant on the ground of age by making him redundant because he was close to retirement.

 

The tribunal drew an inference of age bias against the claimant from this workplace’s frequent age-related practical jokes, such as changing the number plate on his car from “OAB” to “OAP”.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Stock

[Gary Prentice]

Therein lies the rub for me.

 

We're not talking about 15 year old boys at school, it's about grown men at work.

Everyone should have the right to do their job without having to be part of the gang or join in with the laughs.

 

I'm getting concerned that I'm agreeing with more and more of your posts.

 

Are you mellowing as you age?

[Mark Bolam]

It's getting worrying Gary.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk