Help... left my terminal unlocked at work...

churchrat

Pete111 wrote: »

[/B]


Indeed not - thats why in the OPs example a manager/HR will hear the other parties grievance and take this call. Bullying cases are almost always subjective - each individual case needs to be considered on it's own merits.

Assuming the emails are not OTT I would personally struggle to agree this alone was bullying tho. Whinging in a stupid format (ie written down) yes. Bullying? Probably not.

If however the individual coudl cite other behaviour, ie verbal abuse. cruel 'practical jokes' etc and use this as corroberating evidence it would change things. I still have an issue with the manner in which these emails came to light tho - hence my view that the individual would also need to be disciplined.

Have not read the whole thread, so don't know if the op has said exactly what she wrote, but on what is given I agree with you. Neither of them look good in this and I bet the line manager is not looking forward to sorting it out. I would not be feeling very happy with the pair of them.

poet123

Bobl wrote: »

Interesting isn't it how the facts get twisted after a few posts.

The colleague was authorised by the OP to look at their emails - by letting them sit at the terminal without the OP logging off - fact.

The OP sent emails referring to this colleague, who then took offence - fact

That's all there is to it. Whether it is morally wrong to look through other peoples emails does not come into it - stick to the facts.

OP -As you have already said, apologise to the colleague and your boss - I am sure you have learnt a valuable lesson - log off at all times when you leave your desk, it takes about 3 seconds.

Good Luck

The OP believed the colleague when she said she would log off for her as she rushed to be sick due to pregnancy.

That act is what she gave permission for. This does not equate to authorising the colleague to search her emails. It is akin to saying that if you leave your handbag on your chair you are authorising a colleague to rifle through it, or that if you give a key to a friend to feed your cat they can go through your drawers. It was a breach of trust, and a breach of the Computer Misuse Act, and in most companies, a sackable offence.

Rebchappers

Thank you all for your comments. I have today gone into work to look exactly ath waht these 'emails' said ( they were so long ago, i honestly couldnt remember). So here is how it stands at the moment:

I had in fact got 1824 sent emails... not the hundreds i had previously said.

The emails that the colleague had taken exception to were numbered 121 and 1097.... at no point did they mention her by name ( hence she couldnt possibly have used any search function to find her name) She would have had to go through each email systematically and opened them up to read them.

I was moaning about the fact that she had taken more time off, and left us to do the work again. I didnt call her any names, made any inappropriate remarks or such like. It was a comment between two colleagues that was never intended to be seen or made public in anyway. In my eyes this isnt bullying.

I agree, i dont particularly like this colleague, but i have never made it known to her, or treated her any differently to how i would treat other colleagues. It was only because of her snooping that she now knows how i feel. In fact, up until she had accessed my emails, she thought we were friends.... yes, this may appear two faced, but in my opinion, this is the professional way to deal with it. She was treated no differently, and it will continue that way. She had no reason to believe that she was being bullied or harrassed. She was being nosey and found something she didnt like.

After speaking to HR today about this, i have forwarded all of my emails, and we will be meeting tomorrow to discuss. After trying to speak to the colleague today to try and sort things out, she promptly called me somethng derogitry and stormed off home, refusing to talk.

I just want to get this sorted... yes, perhaps i shouldnt have sent this comment but it was never intended for her to see, or anyone else for that matter. But she also shouldnt have knowingly accessed someone elses system.

Pete111

Rebchappers wrote: »

Thank you all for your comments. I have today gone into work to look exactly ath waht these 'emails' said ( they were so long ago, i honestly couldnt remember). So here is how it stands at the moment:

I had in fact got 1824 sent emails... not the hundreds i had previously said.

The emails that the colleague had taken exception to were numbered 121 and 1097.... at no point did they mention her by name ( hence she couldnt possibly have used any search function to find her name) She would have had to go through each email systematically and opened them up to read them.

I was moaning about the fact that she had taken more time off, and left us to do the work again. I didnt call her any names, made any inappropriate remarks or such like. It was a comment between two colleagues that was never intended to be seen or made public in anyway. In my eyes this isnt bullying.

I agree, i dont particularly like this colleague, but i have never made it known to her, or treated her any differently to how i would treat other colleagues. It was only because of her snooping that she now knows how i feel. In fact, up until she had accessed my emails, she thought we were friends.... yes, this may appear two faced, but in my opinion, this is the professional way to deal with it. She was treated no differently, and it will continue that way. She had no reason to believe that she was being bullied or harrassed. She was being nosey and found something she didnt like.

After speaking to HR today about this, i have forwarded all of my emails, and we will be meeting tomorrow to discuss. After trying to speak to the colleague today to try and sort things out, she promptly called me somethng derogitry and stormed off home, refusing to talk.

I just want to get this sorted... yes, perhaps i shouldnt have sent this comment but it was never intended for her to see, or anyone else for that matter. But she also shouldnt have knowingly accessed someone elses system.

I suspect you will be fine OP - just be apologetic and totally honest with HR. I imagine you will get a slap on the wrist.

If it is as you say and there is nothing else your colleague can bring up then you should be ok. From what you posted I would not be looking at firing you and I have worked in HR for 10+ years now.

Your colleague however....I would not be impressed with her one little bit.

Good luck

poet123

Goodness, if everyone was fired who moaned when another colleague was off sick and others moaned about picking up the slack, there would be quite a few empty offices/schools/hospitals/etc,etc. What a storm in a teacup by the colleague, childish and petty. her crime is far greater, imagine the OP had data on her PC which was restricted or even private personal emails (which she is entitled to have as per her employer) what a breach of trust to go poking through all those emails.

She could (for all we know) have been looking for say, banking passwords, log in details for other accounts like Facebook etc, with the intent to put the OP in a bad light. In fact, she could have been up to anything.

She has shown herself to be completely untrustworthy.

Anihilator

poet123 wrote: »

Goodness, if everyone was fired who moaned when another colleague was off sick and others moaned about picking up the slack, there would be quite a few empty offices/schools/hospitals/etc,etc. What a storm in a teacup by the colleague, childish and petty. her crime is far greater, imagine the OP had data on her PC which was restricted or even private personal emails (which she is entitled to have as per her employer) what a breach of trust to go poking through all those emails.

She could (for all we know) have been looking for say, banking passwords, log in details for other accounts like Facebook etc, with the intent to put the OP in a bad light. In fact, she could have been up to anything.

She has shown herself to be completely untrustworthy.

1824 personal emails over what period :rolleyes:
And doing it by email and not to their face or not using their name is no defence if its obvious who you were referring too. And obviously your colleague views it as bullying. I do too.

Be apologetic and hope for the best. Dismissal imo could still be justified.

Anihilator

poet123 wrote: »

Goodness, if everyone was fired who moaned when another colleague was off sick and others moaned about picking up the slack, there would be quite a few empty offices/schools/hospitals/etc,etc. What a storm in a teacup by the colleague, childish and petty. her crime is far greater, imagine the OP had data on her PC which was restricted or even private personal emails (which she is entitled to have as per her employer) what a breach of trust to go poking through all those emails.

She could (for all we know) have been looking for say, banking passwords, log in details for other accounts like Facebook etc, with the intent to put the OP in a bad light. In fact, she could have been up to anything.

She has shown herself to be completely untrustworthy.

How exactly.

They did a sick colleague a favour. They saw a derogatory email and investigated it and reported it accordingly.

I will bet they dont even get discliplined as they havent broke any laws etc and their are mitigating circumstances for using another colleagues equipment.

poet123

If you read the number of the emails the OP detailed you will see how far apart they were. How many pages do you suppose the person would need to look through to "come across" those two "incriminating" emails?

"The emails that the colleague had taken exception to were numbered 121 and 1097.... at no point did they mention her by name ( hence she couldnt possibly have used any search function to find her name) She would have had to go through each email systematically and opened them up to read them."

Doing a sickcolleague a favour would have been to open the start button and press log off, not search through over 1800 emails. Just because the email account was open does not make the person authorised to view the contents. it is a gross invasion of privacy.

How can you be sure there was no malicious intent? would you say the same if the person in question had been say the MD and his emails had been read? or the HR director, and their email history had emails from you giving personal details, the content of which was now all over the office?

There has tp be trust and integrity between collleagues, and this person has breached that trust.

ceridwen

foxy-roxy wrote: »

I don't see this as bullying as the colleague wasn't meant to see anything.
Bullying would be targeting the person and making sure they seen them, if the colleauge had just minded her own business and got on with her own work, none of this would have happened, simple as that.

i'm the first person to be anti-bullying - been on the receiving end of it myself:eek::mad:.

However - personal comments simply dont count - no matter what they are if they are one person to another person...end of....

The noseyparker, on the other hand, has proven what sort of person they are by virtue of being a noseyparker - and I doubt they will ever live that down. The fact that they have "noseyparkered" will emerge at work one way or another and no-one will ever trust them again. They should have thought of that before they snooped away....:rolleyes:

Certainly - if I were in OP's position - I would tell every single colleague I am friendly with what noseyparker did - and wait for every single person in the firm to be well aware of what noseyparker was like within the week....

Honestly OP - whatever else happens - noseyparker will realise this was not a good idea err long..

ceridwen

I must admit that, if I were O.P. right now, I would be sitting there saying to myself "ceridwen - you were pretty naive to trust noseyparker like that" - BUT "I would rather be a bit naive on one occasion - than to be so stupid throughout my life that I couldnt see that I would suffer long-term for being a noseyparker". Given the choice - I would MUCH rather be naive than stupid...