Is workplace banter a sign of a vibrant and healthy work environment? Or is it a symptom of something more toxic? When does banter become bullying?
The line between banter and bullying is wafer thin. The dictionary definition of ‘banter’ is the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks.
However, we would extend that definition.
'Banter' is the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks between consenting persons of equal status or position.
All the parties participating in the banter (including those on the receiving end) should be doing so willingly. They should also be relative peers in terms of power and influence. It's very corrosive if someone senior is teasing someone junior.
It may be that banter is intended with genuine humour and goodwill, but it's all to easy for it to stray into harassment or discrimination.
At best, it may be “ignorant banter” where no offence was intended. Hopefully, the person making the comments will apologise when they find out the recipient was distressed.
Note that intent is irrelevant. You cannot defend harassment, bullying and discrimination by claiming you didn't mean it, or that the offended party simply misunderstood.
Sadly, we often encounter the darker form of "malicious banter". This is where someone is trying to humiliate someone else under the ‘camouflage’ of banter.
Malicious banter is the most toxic of all. If you don’t do something about it, the culture at work can become very unpleasant. Worse, you may end up with an employee grievance or a discrimination claim to deal with.
Most of us spend more of our adult life at work than at home with our families. It's nice to work in an environment where we can enjoy the company of our colleagues.
It's good to have a friendly environment and even a little 'repartee' with our colleagues. However, it's essential that everyone feels comfortable at work and treated with dignity and respect.
It is all too easy for witty comments to develop a dark edge, and stray into teasing or humiliating language. Cutting sarcasm or references to a protected characteristic are examples of red flags!
Leaders need to monitor the culture at work, watching out for the signs that banter may be crossing a line. It is imperative that managers intervene and nip any potentially toxic banter in the bud.
If you turn a 'blind eye' to banter, it's likely to become ingrained into the culture and even escalate over time.
In Fleming v McGill Facilities Management (4101494/2022), a manager was awarded £15,400 in a discrimination and unfair dismissal claim.
There was a discussion in the office about an upcoming office move. The claimant, Ms Fleming, asked about seating arrangements and was told it was "boy, girl, boy, girl".
Ms Fleming pointed out that the staff were predominantly female and that she would like to be near a colleague with whom she worked closely. A colleague responded with a comment along the lines of "you dykes all sit at the top".
The claimant found this comment upsetting and embarrassing, and she subsequently raised a grievance about the matter.
The employer accepted that a homophobic slur had been used but dismissed it as "just banter". As the incident was widely known within the business, the claimant felt to embarrassed to continue working there, and she resigned.
Ms Fleming won her claim for constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination.
If someone treats you unfavourably because they assume you have a protected characteristic (even if you don't) that can still be discrimination.
We saw this in the case of Austin v Samuel Grant (North East) Ltd ET/2503956/11. Here, an employee was harassed for being “homosexual” and “gay” by colleagues because he had told them he didn’t like football. In reality, the employee was heterosexual.
On one occasion, the employee left his desk to make a cup of tea. When he returned, he found that colleagues had changed his computer's desktop background to pornographic images.
When the employee raised a grievance, not only was the grievance not upheld, but a performance concern was raised against him. Shortly after, the employee was summarily dismissed by one of the colleagues who had been teasing him.
The Employment Tribunal found that he was harassed and unfairly dismissed. The employee was awarded £44,000.
An extreme example of a runaway toxic culture is the case of Weinberger v Tullett & Tokyo Liberty (2001).
In this case, there was a well-established culture of banter and horseplay in the office. Strong language, jibes and insults were commonplace.
One particular aspect of banter and horseplay within this team was that lateness was punished by being forced to wear a fancy dress costume for the day.
One individual working at the firm was a Mr Weinberger, who was Jewish and apparently had a grandmother who died at Auschwitz.
According to Mr Weinberger, he was regularly referred to as "Jew boy" and "yiddo" by one of his bosses. On an occasion where he was late to work, he was coerced into wearing a Nazi uniform for the day as a punishment.
The employer settled out of court. The settlement sum was not disclosed, but is understood to be significant.
It's probably very obvious what the problem was with the banter in this case. It's also astonishing that apparently nobody picked up on what was wrong with it.
However, that's exactly why this is such a valuable case study. It shows how a culture of banter can gradually develop, ratcheting up over time, until extreme levels of toxicity are achieved.
If you want a more detailed discussion on banter at work, check out our video below. Our managing partner, Jim, talks in more detail about the topics mentioned in the article above (runtime: 20 minutes).
