Laughing at someone when they fall over at work isn’t harassment, judge rules as pub worker loses tribunal claim after his boss chuckled when he slipped in the kitchen
- Kesarajith Perera was left red faced after taking a tumble on a patch of oil
Laughing at someone when they fall over at work isn’t harassment, a judge has ruled – as a pub worker lost a tribunal claim after his boss chuckled when he slipped over.
Kesarajith Perera was left red faced after taking a tumble on a patch of oil at The George pub in Harrow, London, prompting his manager Hesham Badra to laugh out loud at his expense.
Mr Perera was later dismissed over an unrelated matter, prompting him to sue Stonegate Pub Company Ltd claiming racial and religious harassment and cite Mr Badra’s response to his accident as evidence.
But employment judge David Maxwell threw out his case, saying that the ‘slapstick element’ of someone falling over was likely to provoke laughter.
‘Whilst it might be tempting to hope that one colleague would only ever react in a sympathetic way towards the misfortune of another, common experience suggests this is not always the case,’ he said.
Kesarajith Perera was left red faced after taking a tumble on a patch of oil at The George pub in Harrow, London
The tribunal, held in Watford, heard Mr Perera started working at The George in January 2020 as a kitchen team member before suffering the fall in March.
In October, following failure to provide documentation for his proof of right to work in the UK, he was dismissed, prompting him to take the pub’s owners to a tribunal complaining of racism.
Mr Perera suggested his boss had deliberately put oil on the floor to make him slip up before laughing when he succeeded.
However, his claims were dismissed, with the panel ruling that it was ‘ridiculous’ to think Mr Bandara put oil on the floor deliberately.
School business manager who lost her job of 25 years just 17 days before she was eligible for her pension wins age tribunal
‘Unfortunately, it appears to us, Mr Perera has a tendency to jump to conclusions when he encounters misfortune,’ the tribunal said.
‘Furthermore, Mr Perera’s allegation was undermined by his own evidence, which was to the effect that the location where he fell was one prone to spillages.’
The panel concluded the laughter had nothing to do with Mr Perera’s race or religion.
Mr Perera’s additional complaint that he had been given the ‘full time role of cleaning toilets’ was also dismissed.
Judge Maxwell added: ‘Cleaning the toilets could scarcely be made into a full-time role.
‘Mr Perera’s objection was the same as before – this was an unpleasant duty he did not think he should have to carry out.’
Dismissing his claims of harassment, Judge Maxwell said: ‘None of the treatment complained of had the proscribed purpose or effect.
‘The conduct itself, objectively, came nowhere near having the proscribed effect, and his view of matters was unreasonable.’
However, the tribunal did rule in his favour regarding unlawful deductions of wages and awarded him £1,426.11.
He was also handed £908.91 for the pub’s ‘abysmal’ paperwork after he was not provided with a written particulars of employment.
Source: Read Full Article