Kate Palmer: Are employers responsible for what happens at the Christmas party?

-

As we approach the festive season many companies are likely to have planned their annual Christmas party. Whilst festive social gatherings are usually very popular with the workforce, and can offer the chance to reward and engage with employees, they can also give rise to instances of poor behaviour from staff.

Alcohol consumption, coupled with a relaxed social atmosphere, can foster situations which may not occur in the every-day office, ranging from aggressive behaviour to more serious cases of discrimination and harassment. Although Christmas parties are fundamentally a social and fun occasion they are also, as official company-organised events, an extension of the working environment. In other words, if employees behave in an inappropriate, aggressive or dangerous manner whilst at the party, their employer may be responsible for their actions.

Legally, an employer has a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees. By extension, they can be liable for actions committed by employees in the course of their employment if they cannot demonstrate they took ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent it. For example, companies should have policies in place which set out the type of behaviour expected from employees and that which will be considered unacceptable. If an employee claims they are being harassed by a colleague the company is expected to take swift action to deal with it in line with their policy. An employee who is harassed may be able to seek compensation from their employer if it can be shown that the employer took no steps to try to prevent this behaviour. This is known as ‘vicarious liability’ and also extends to work-related social gatherings.

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

The rise of the ‘MeToo’ movement, which originated in October 2017 when Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was accused of multiple counts of sexual misconduct, has seen a significant number of women across the globe come forward claiming to have been sexually harassed within a professional environment. If this was to occur within at a Christmas party, and is not properly managed or responded to by the employer, they could face claims of vicarious liability.

An employer should remember that this level of responsibility can also extend to ‘after party’ drinks. Although these are technically not officially organised by the company, it may still be liable for the actions of its employees if it can be established that their conduct is sufficiently connected to their position. An example of this is seen in the recent case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Limited, where a manager had punched one of his employees in the face. The Court of Appeal found that the company was liable for the actions of the manager as, although this occurred in an after party, all drinks and taxis had been paid for by the company and the manager was acting within his management capacity.

Although Christmas parties are usually a positive way of motivating a workforce and a fun occasion for everyone involved, companies must ensure that their workers maintain certain standards of behaviour. A key element for employers to demonstrate that they are not vicariously liable for the behaviour of an employee is to have a robust anti-harassment and bullying stance including policies and training for employees on the effect of the policy.

Kate Palmer is HR Advice and Consultancy Director at global employment law consultancy, Peninsula.
Kate joined in 2009 from a worldwide facility services company where she was Senior HR Manager. Her exploits included providing HR & employment law support to over 30 UK hospitals and dealing with high profile NHS union cases—expertise she now brings to Peninsula clients.
Today, Kate is involved in all aspects of HR and employment law advice.

Latest news

Personalising the Benefits Experience: Why Employees Need More Than Just Information

This article explores how organisations can move beyond passive, one-size-fits-all communication to deliver relevant, timely, and simplified benefits experiences that reflect employee needs and life stages.

Grant Wyatt: When the love dies – when staying is riskier than quitting

When people fall out of love with their employer, or feel their employer has fallen out of love with them, what follows is rarely a clean exit.

£30bn pension savings window opens for employers ahead of 2029 reforms

UK employers could unlock billions in National Insurance savings by expanding pension salary sacrifice schemes before new limits take effect in 2029.

Expat jobs ‘fail early as costs hit $79,000 per worker’

International assignments are ending early due to family strain, isolation and poor preparation, as rising costs increase pressure on employers.
- Advertisement -

The Great Employer Divide: What the evidence shows about employers that back parents and carers — and those that don’t

Understand the growing divide between organisations that effectively support working parents and carers — and those that don’t. This session shows how to turn employee experience data into a clear business case, linking care-related pressures to performance, retention and workforce stability.

Scott Mills exit puts spotlight on risk of ‘news vacuum’ in high-profile dismissals

Sudden departure of a long-serving BBC presenter raises questions about how employers manage high-profile dismissals and limit speculation.

Must read

Ben Bengougam: How to set up an apprentice scheme in a large organisation

A year on from the successful launch of the...

Omar Dawood: Steps employers can take to create an inclusive work environment for LGBTQ+ employees

While LGBTQ+ Pride Month took place in June, the inclusivity and opportunities for learning that the month embodies should be exemplified year-round, argues Omar Dawood.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you