In the case of Mr J. Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd the Watford tribunal heard that Mr R – a prepare driver of greater than 20 years’ expertise – began working for the rail agency in 2018.
In mid-2022 he had a dialog within the mess room at work with a feminine colleague recognized solely as Driver A.
‘At some point, the issue of insects and/or spiders was brought up due to [Mr R] occasionally looking after those his friend(s) kept as pets, along with a snake,’ the tribunal heard.
‘At some point Driver A indicated a certain dislike of, or squeamishness in relation to, insects and/or spiders. This dislike was not elaborated upon.’
‘[Mr Richardson] sought to play a prank on her by placing the [tarantula] exoskeleton in her pigeonhole,’ the tribunal heard.
‘Whatever [his] intentions, Driver A was distressed by the episode and couldn’t take care of the exoskeleton; she required a colleague to clear it from her pigeonhole.’
The tribunal heard Mr Richardson raised the prank when he subsequent met Driver A and he or she referred to as him a ‘f***ing tw**’ after which he recommended he may do one thing related with a snakeskin and he or she replied that she would report him.
The listening to was informed Mr Richardson believed the tone of this dialog had been ‘jokey’, that being referred to as a ‘tw**’ was ‘playful’ and he had not understood Driver A’s ‘genuine upset’.
She additionally later described the trade as ‘over the top banter,’ the listening to was informed, however the subsequent month when he placed a snakeskin in her pigeonhole, she reported him to her boss.
At a disciplinary assembly in September Mr Richardson supplied his ‘sincere apologies’ to Driver A however was sacked for gross misconduct after the corporate concluded he was responsible of bullying.
After an unsuccessful enchantment towards his dismissal, Mr Richardson took the corporate to the tribunal claiming unfair and wrongful dismissal.
Upholding his claims, Employment Judge Matthew Hunt stated: ‘All events appreciated what a prank was. Its objective is to elicit a short-lived response of shock or shock, adopted by some form of feeling of reduction and good humour.
‘By saying this, I don’t intend to trivialise Driver A’s upset and totally respect that on this case the exoskeleton was real and effectively able to inflicting higher shock.
‘[The company] in this case took [Mr Richardson’s] pranks as being supposed, or able to, inducing some form of lasting state of appreciable shock in Driver A, ample to probably result in catastrophic accident or vital business interruption.’
EJ Hunt says this conclusion was ‘inconsistent’ with the character of the prank and shouldn’t have been judged as gross misconduct.
A listening to to find out Mr Richardson’s compensation might be decided at a later date.
This supplies abstract data and touch upon the topic areas lined. Where employment tribunal and appellate court docket instances are reported, the data doesn’t set out all the information, the authorized arguments offered and the judgments made in each side of the case. Employment regulation is topic to fixed change both by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While each care has been taken in compiling this data, we can’t be held answerable for any errors or omissions. Specialist authorized recommendation have to be taken on any authorized points which will come up earlier than embarking upon any formal plan of action.
