Workplace Horseplay and Employers’ Responsibilities – Guideline Ruling

Irresponsible horseplay in the workplace can cause serious injury, but to what extent should employers be held indirectly – or vicariously – liable for such behaviour? The Court of Appeal considered that burning issue in a guideline case.

A fitter was bending down to pick up a length of…

Jan 20, 2022

A fitter was bending down to pick up a length of steel when a workmate placed two pellet targets on a bench close to his right ear. The workmate struck the targets with a hammer, causing a loud explosion. As a result, the fitter suffered noise-induced hearing loss in his right ear and tinnitus.

He launched a compensation claim against the company that employed the other man and operated and controlled the site where the incident occurred. His claim was, however, rejected on the basis that the company bore neither direct nor vicarious responsibility for the other man’s practical joke.

Rejecting his challenge to that outcome, the Court noted that the targets had been brought onto the site by the other man and were not part of the work equipment provided by the company. He had no supervisory or other role in respect of the fitter’s work and his wrongful act was not authorised by the company or carried out in the course of his employment. It was therefore neither just, fair nor reasonable to impose vicarious liability on the company.

The Court noted that the fitter and his team were external contractors. There was some friction between them and other workers directly employed by the company. There was, however, no suggestion that those tensions had previously resulted in actual violence or threats of violence. It could not be said that the incident was reasonably foreseeable by the company.

It was unrealistic to suggest that the company should have specifically instructed workers on the site not to engage in horseplay. That went without saying in that common sense decreed that such behaviour was inappropriate. There was in any event a site rule in place that forbade workers from intentionally or recklessly misusing equipment. That was a warning against exactly what the other man did.

Inadequate Workplace Toilet Triggers Direct Sex Discrimination Finding

As those who follow the news will know, public and workplace toilet facilities are the focus of a national debate concerning gender. In an employment case on point, a female office clerk who had to share a toilet with male colleagues succeeded in a direct sex discrimination claim. The woman worked for a local authority in a building fitted with both male and female toilets. She used the female toilet when she could, but accessing it was problematic in that it was in part of the building used by…

Disability Discrimination by Association – Guideline EAT Decision

It may sound surprising, but you need not necessarily be disabled in order to suffer disability discrimination. As one case showed, it is legally possible for a non-disabled employee to suffer discrimination by association with a disabled colleague. A sales manager was recruited by a company’s sales and marketing director, who subsequently became disabled due to cancer. After both men were dismissed, the manager launched proceedings, asserting that he had been subjected to direct disability…

Are You Sure Your Employee’s Misbehaviour is Not Disability-Related?

You may be justified in dismissing a misbehaving employee but, before doing so, it is always essential to ask yourself whether their conduct may arise from a disability. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in upholding a diabetic hotel worker’s disability discrimination claim. The employee, who suffered from insulin-dependent type 1 diabetes, admitted that his behaviour in the six months he worked at the hotel was sometimes poor. He was dismissed following an incident in…