April 1st, also known as “April Fools’ Day,” falls on a Saturday this year. This means that there will likely be fewer “pranks” in the workplace. However, it should come as no surprise that workplace pranks can lead to justified discipline and possibly even just cause termination. In this blog, I will explore when a prank goes too far, regardless of when the prank is committed.

For employees, it may be safe just to avoid pranks generally. In an older study of Canadian executives, fifty-eight percent (58%) consider April Fools’ pranks unsuitable for the office. In the same study, only four percent (4%) of Canadian executives thought April Fools’ pranks are very appropriate.

Legally speaking, employees should generally approach jokes and pranks in the workplace with caution. A joke or a prank may end up being contrary to the employer’s policy on workplace bullying and harassment and possibly violate Human Rights legislation. What is an appropriate prank will depend on the circumstances of each situation. Those who work in management positions should be extra careful, as there is a power imbalance between them and their staff.

Employers should also be cautious when they hear that an employee was just “joking around” or “it was a prank.” These phrases have been used as excuses to justify harassment and discrimination. If an employer does not address harassment or discrimination quickly, they could find themselves liable for allowing such behaviour.

Cases where pranks went too far

There are court cases that address employee “pranks.” To demonstrate when pranks cross the line, let’s look at three such cases. Although all the cases summarized below deal with a union, they would likely end with similar results in a non-unionized workplace.

To begin, there is the case of Sulzer Metco (Canada) Inc. v. C.E.P., Local 530A (2009 CarswellAlta 2308). This case involved a long-serving employee who worked at a plant with dangerous chemicals and gases. The employee started to use firecrackers to scare younger employees. Eventually, the employee threw a firecracker near two employees, who were working near hydrogen gas. Though the employee apologized for his “prank” the employer decided to dismiss him due to the serious safety violation. The employee grieved the employer’s decision to terminate him for just cause. However, the arbitrator found that the seriousness of the misconduct, justified the termination of the long-serving employee.

The second, much older case is Canada (Treasury Board) v. Aucoin (1988 CarswellNat 1661). In this case, a few employees planned a prank where an employee, Randy Abel, would bake banana bread with marijuana and share it with unexpecting employees. One of Abel’s colleagues, Lorne Smith, ended up eating a good amount of the marijuana-laced banana bread without knowing that it contained marijuana until well after he consumed it. The employer investigated and gave every employee who perpetrated the “prank” a twenty-day suspension. One of the employees given such a suspension, Wendy Aucoin, grieved her suspension claiming that she did not know that the banana bread contained marijuana until after it was brought to the workplace. The Board Member found that Aucoin’s failure to warn colleagues about the banana bread when she learnt of its contents justified a ten-day suspension instead of the twenty-day suspension she was initially given.

The third case is Calgary (City) and ATU, Local 583 (Slupski), Re (2002 CarswellAlta 2433). This case takes place at a time when there was an international alert due to organizations receiving anonymous letters containing anthrax powder. Allan Slupski, a journeyman for Calgary Transit, decided to put white foot powder in an envelope and put that envelope in a colleague’s lunchbox, as a prank. The envelope was thrown out, but ended up on another colleague’s desk who got very concerned about the white powder in the envelope, eventually calling the Fire Department’s Hazardous Material Unit. The firefighters and police arrived on the scene and caused considerable disruption, which created some loss in production at the facility. When the employer investigated, they discovered that Slupski created the envelope, and they suspended him for ten days. Slupski grieved that decision. The Board reduced the suspension to five days, citing his long disciplinary-free work history, his belief that the letter was disposed of, and his remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

How Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation can help

At Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation, we can help employers make appropriate disciplinary decisions after their employee does an inappropriate “prank.” Employers only have one shot at the discipline that they give for this type of misconduct. Therefore, it is a good idea to contact one of our employment lawyers to ensure that they give an appropriate penalty and avoid costly consequences if they get it wrong.

The employment lawyers at Suzanne Desrosiers Professional Corporation can also help employees who get wrongfully or unjustly dismissed for a workplace prank. To get advice from one of our employment lawyers, please contact us by calling us at 705-268-6492 or by emailing us at info@sdlawtimmins.com.