Let's look at a real case
Sy Joshua, M.A., M.Sc.
Helping organisations produce better outcomes for ethnic minority groups. | TEDx Speaker | Race Equity Consultant | Anti-racism Superfan
Let’s look at a real case and allow me to set the scene.???
The workplace was car sales; a well known brand dealership.? The sales team employed 12 men.??
Some members of the team had known each other for years.? I mean their friendships extended beyond work into leisure activities, hanging out with each other's partners and family members.? In the office they spoke and joked together in a manner which all considered acceptable banter.? ? You know, teasing and joking were part of everyday conversation.???
Mr. Ahmed was a member of this team and known by his teammates to be Muslim; the only Muslim employee in the sales team, he was popular and known as a bit of a joker.??
On the evening of Monday 22 May 2017, there was the suicide bombing attack at the Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.? A horrendous attack and as we know many people including children were killed and injured.???
At the dealership, the next morning, the topic of conversation in the office was the bombing.? Mr. Ahmed was 15 minutes late coming into work and as he walked through the door one of his colleagues said laughing, ‘Here comes our terrorist’.???
Then another colleague joined in and said, ‘and where were you last night then?’???
Mr. Ahmed did not find these remarks playful or friendly in the least.? He had that very morning been explaining the sombre news about the bombing to his own young child before leaving for work. He complained, but his boss and his colleagues thought he couldn’t take a joke and his complaint was not upheld.?????
What do you think? Was this just a bit of playful banter??
Mr. Ahmed didn’t think so and took his complaint to an employment tribunal.?????
Judge Lewis in the deliberation of this case examined a well established definition of banter which is described as being,?
‘A playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks’.?
Let me break this definition down into 4 points.?
Point 1: ‘The words ‘playful’ and ‘friendly’ tell us about the nature of the banter, that it should be mild, it's not hostile.? If the remarks are hostile or demeaning it ain’t banter, period.? But this is a tricky area because it’s open to all sorts of interpretation, depending on how and when things are said and read.? Also it can include tone, body language and such.????
Point 2:? Banter involves an ‘exchange’, which indicates that more than one person is involved and it’s going back and forth.? Otherwise there would be no exchange right???
Point 3:? The word ‘teasing’ in the definition of banter says that the intent is to provoke or make fun of someone.??
领英推荐
Point 4:? Finally the word ‘remarks’ tells us that banter is likely to be in the spoken word or written.? And that takes us to many ways of expression, emails, videos, memes, text and group chats.?
So what did the Judge make of the employer’s banter defence?
Judge Lewis found that even though Mr. Ahmed’s colleagues thought they were joking and Mr. Ahmed knew they were joking, it was reasonable for Mr Ahmed to feel that their actions violated his dignity and created an offensive environment and this met the threshold of harassment related to religion.??
This was because his colleagues' comments associated Mr. Ahmed’s and his religious faith with terrorism and a criminal mass murderer. It was deeply, deeply offensive to him.???
These comments crossed the banter boundary into the harassment zone and although it happened once,? whether it was intended or not isn’t a good defence.???
The Equality Act 2010 describes unlawful harassment as being,?
‘When a person engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for a person.’?
The relevant protected characteristics for harassment are
In highlighting this case, I’m not trying to promote a soulless workplace devoid of discussion or laughter where no-one dares speak freely for fear of offending someone.??
Quite the opposite, banter is very important in the workplace, but this has to be balanced being civil to one another so we can all show up as our true selves.??
That’s why most workplaces have a ‘dignity at work’ policy or something similar, just to make it clear what behaviour is unacceptable.??
When it’s done well, banter at work can deepen relationships, create memories, garner trust and lead to work enjoyment and satisfaction.? The topics which you can tease about are infinite, but you should always remember the ‘banter baseline’ and stay current and clued up on what’s acceptable language, terminology and behaviour in the modern workplace.???
Above all, try and stick to these 2 Golden Rules:??
Have you or someone you know ever witnessed harassment disguised as banter?? How did they deal with it???
Hope this article added some value
References?
Definition of harassment straight from the Equality Act 2010
???? WORLD'S FIRST CROWDSURFER AT AN HR CONFERENCE ?? Mental Health Trainer ?? Keynote Speaker on Resilience & Heavy Music ?? MSc Psychology ?? Massive Nerd ?
2 年Really interesting! I feel that banter is only banter if both/all parties genuinely see it as such, otherwise it's just bullying. I think the use of the word as a defence for poor behaviour has really changed the way it is perceived by many...