Exclusion from lotto syndicate..

robbieb7

If a work lotto syndicate was going around - and you were delibrately excluded from it - would you lay claim to a prize should it win. Assuming you have expressed intrest in joining once found out one was in existance..again, which many of your work colleagues had joined and not informed you about?

Does the person starting a work syndicate have to include all work staff? or at least make them aware is basically my question?

Appreciate an answer, not that im unpopular at work you understand just curious in case we do start a syndicate and wanting to know if i should let everyone know.

Thinking, if using work email...does it then become an issue...kindof thing?

Curious to know.

ta
R

CIARAN_BOYLE

No reason why you would have to include everyone imo

nuac

No claim.

Milk & Honey

Nobody could claim a share of any prize money, but it is conceivable that if there was a process of secretly excluding an individual, or individuals, then a claim of bullying by way of social exclusion could be made out.

BrianD

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Nobody could claim a share of any prize money, but it is conceivable that if there was a process of secretly excluding an individual, or individuals, then a claim of bullying by way of social exclusion could be made out.

But there would still be no claim to the prize.

Milk & Honey

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Nobody could claim a share of any prize money, but it is conceivable that if there was a process of secretly excluding an individual, or individuals, then a claim of bullying by way of social exclusion could be made out.

No. This is just wrong. There is no basis for a claim. This isn't playschool. Everyone doesn't have to share. If a few people in an office want to have a lotto syndicate they aren't obliged to include anyone who expresses interest and since the syndicate is based on contract it excludes anyone who is not a party to it.

Milk & Honey

BrianD wrote: »

But there would still be no claim to the prize.

I said there would not be a claim to share in the prize.

Milk & Honey

Deleted User wrote: »

No. This is just wrong. There is no basis for a claim. This isn't playschool. Everyone doesn't have to share. If a few people in an office want to have a lotto syndicate they aren't obliged to include anyone who expresses interest and since the syndicate is based on contract it excludes anyone who is not a party to it.

Social exclusion is a recognised method of bullying. Bullying at work happens as much as bullying in a playschool. It is one thing if 4 or 5 people out of 50 decide to have a syndicate. It is quite another if it was 9 out of 10 with deliberate efforts to exclude the 10th.

Milk & Honey

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Social exclusion is a recognised method of bullying. Bullying at work happens as much as bullying in a playschool. It is one thing if 4 or 5 people out of 50 decide to have a syndicate. It is quite another if it was 9 out of 10 with deliberate efforts to exclude the 10th.

That's only true where the method of social exclusion is being used for that purpose specifically. Simply not including somebody is not enough, you have to show that it was deliberate.

OP is asking about starting his own syndicate so none of this really arises.

robbieb7

Ok thank you for the replies. To be honest, and although im aware this is indeed not playschool...but if a syndicate is going around the office - but you are delibrately not included ( due to the lotto organiser..basically..not liking you )..they use work email to communicate, and work time to collect monies etc...would the individual who ( has announced they are eager to join..and not be left out ( and yes aware that perhaps only half of the office staff actually are in the syndicate so not a case of a single person left out ) but wouldnt they have a claim due to the fact this syndicate takes place in a working environment?

I would of thought, aside from the moral issues of exclusion and yes - it is a form of psychological bullying - that you could at least bring about a case - due to it being formed/applied in work hours?

amtw

robbieb7 wrote: »

Ok thank you for the replies. To be honest, and although im aware this is indeed not playschool...but if a syndicate is going around the office - but you are delibrately not included ( due to the lotto organiser..basically..not liking you )..they use work email to communicate, and work time to collect monies etc...would the individual who ( has announced they are eager to join..and not be left out ( and yes aware that perhaps only half of the office staff actually are in the syndicate so not a case of a single person left out ) but wouldnt they have a claim due to the fact this syndicate takes place in a working environment?

I would of thought, aside from the moral issues of exclusion and yes - it is a form of psychological bullying - that you could at least bring about a case - due to it being formed/applied in work hours?

Who would you bring a case against, the members of the syndicate, your employer? I don't think there is a court in the land that would uphold such a claim.
If someone is being excluded why not just ask a syndicate member that they are friendly with if they can join. I would think that if someone wanted to join they would be allowed unless the numbers were restricted from the begining.

dats_right

robbieb7 wrote: »

Ok thank you for the replies. To be honest, and although im aware this is indeed not playschool...but if a syndicate is going around the office - but you are delibrately not included ( due to the lotto organiser..basically..not liking you )..they use work email to communicate, and work time to collect monies etc...would the individual who ( has announced they are eager to join..and not be left out ( and yes aware that perhaps only half of the office staff actually are in the syndicate so not a case of a single person left out ) but wouldnt they have a claim due to the fact this syndicate takes place in a working environment?

I would of thought, aside from the moral issues of exclusion and yes - it is a form of psychological bullying - that you could at least bring about a case - due to it being formed/applied in work hours?

Well you thought wrong. The question has been answered already and it doesn't matter how you try rephrase it, you would have, rightly so in my opinion, zero claim to any of the prize money. Your work colleagues are free to associate with whoever they want and are under absolutely no obligation moral or legal to include you. If you have a problem with that why don't you go crying to mammy that the big boys won't let you play with them. Mammy maybe able to sort things out for you, alternatively just buy your own lotto ticket!

Victor

It would be wise for any employer to not allow such a syndicate in the workplace.

Kosseegan

amtw wrote: »

Who would you bring a case against, the members of the syndicate, your employer? I don't think there is a court in the land that would uphold such a claim.
If someone is being excluded why not just ask a syndicate member that they are friendly with if they can join. I would think that if someone wanted to join they would be allowed unless the numbers were restricted from the begining.

There would be no claim to prize monies but courts do make awards of damages for bullying. It would depend on the effects the bullying had. A claim could be made out against the organiser and the employer. Also a complaint should be made to the employer at the outset and not after the syndicate wins. Employers might allow a syndicate in a work place on the basis of a morale boost, but should not allow it to be used for personal grudges.
If a group of employess want to have a syndicate, limited to individuals they choose, they should meet and discuss it outside of work hours and the workplace and should not use work facilities.