Colleague issue

whitewing

MrRedundant wrote: »

An interesting thread and one with so many aspects.

First point. At this stage what HR, he and the organisation are faced with is allegations and allegations with very little evidence or proof. It is important that neither party is treated unfairly even him. My personal opinion would have not suspended only him as it is despite the "neutruel" act argument anything but in reality.

I find it amazing that if someone approaches you at work and says X exposed himself to me, and here's an email from him that does not deny it, you would let him stay in the office.

Where I worked a man got arrested (at home) for child pornography downloading (at home) and that was in the paper. Work suspended him immediately. Half the staff would have walked out otherwise. Yes, innocent until proven guilty but suspension to protect everybody involved.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Nor do the majority have the right, either.

Agreed. Hardly any really, just the obvious ones with contact issues to be ensured & they mostly are job dependent & not company/organisation dependent.

ceridwen

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Oh give it a rest luv.

A second uncalled for comment against me (wondering why??) - oh well...I wont take it personally and I'm sure Gwen is capable of reading back previous posts by someone to see if they are prone to making this type of comment (often a useful exercise if one thinks "Ooh - they shouldnt have said that. I wonder if they often make such comments to people.");):)

Sambucus_Nigra

ceridwen wrote: »

A second uncalled for comment against me (wondering why??) - oh well...I wont take it personally and I'm sure Gwen is capable of reading back previous posts by someone to see if they are prone to making this type of comment (often a useful exercise if one thinks "Ooh - they shouldnt have said that. I wonder if they often make such comments to people.");):)

And here's a third. Please DO take it personally; you always jump on the bandwagon where there is an underdog and try to gain 'camaraderie' with them by attacking 'other erm posters' who may be pointing out other angles to a situation that you cannot understand or comprehend.

Just as people can see my other posts - they can [should they have insomnia and need a good sleep] see yours.

ceridwen

..or just maybe I'm not such a harsh person as you would appear to be.

Have a nice day now:D

Sambucus_Nigra

ceridwen wrote: »

..or just maybe I'm not such a harsh person as you would appear to be.

Have a nice day now:D

I'm very proud of my harshness thank you very much.

SueC_2

MrRedundant wrote: »

Thirdly - Employment law has a different burden from criminal law. The police would investigate but its unlikely to go further.

I don't understand this. If the guy had exposed himself in the park / on a bus / walking down the street / in the pub / anywhere else, it would clearly be a police matter. Are you saying that they are not interested because the (alleged) offence happened in the workplace and so is covered by employment law not criminal law?

By an extension of that, is it also okay for me to steal from / assault / be abusive towards / blackmail, my colleagues safe in the knowledge that the law of the land won't care and I may lose my job but I won't be prosecuted?

Sounds a bit off to me.

Sambucus_Nigra

It is off - and if the OP went to the police then I'm sure they would act outside of what is going on in work.

Hectors_House

Although I can see that you don't want to have to deal with this yourself I must say I wonder what else he will do (to you or some other unfortunate colleague) if he isn't stopped now.

Witchfinder_General

Hectors_House wrote: »

Although I can see that you don't want to have to deal with this yourself I must say I wonder what else he will do (to you or some other unfortunate colleague) if he isn't stopped now.

Are you a cautious old Hector?