Colleague issue

ceridwen

Wishing Gwen luck with reaching the best decisions as to how to proceed now.

Hippygran has made some helpful posts on here from the POV of someone who has been in this position.

It would be very useful if there is anyone else who has been in this position who can say how they reacted/what they did to this. Think this is needed as a counterbalance to some "less than helpful" posts earlier on this thread.

Sambucus_Nigra

ceridwen wrote: »

Wishing Gwen luck with reaching the best decisions as to how to proceed now.

Hippygran has made some helpful posts on here from the POV of someone who has been in this position.

It would be very useful if there is anyone else who has been in this position who can say how they reacted/what they did to this. Think this is needed as a counterbalance to some "less than helpful" posts earlier on this thread.

The 'less than helpful' posts have come from people qualified & with experience in [actual] management - it seems what you are really after is posts from people who 'haven't got a clue'...


And who are YOU to decide what is and isn't helpful? You have no idea who reads this and takes what they need from it. Perhaps a new manager will read it and learn what should and shouldn't happen and be able to deal with the situation in the future. Perhaps someone is reading it and learns what they should do, [and how HR should react] if the situation happens in the future.

Just because Ceridwen says it - doesn't make it THE LAW.

This is an open forum - anyone can post. Kindly keep your 'less than helpful' comments to yourself - as they in themselves are 'less than helpful'.

Nicki

:cool:

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

The 'less than helpful' posts have come from people qualified & with experience in [actual] management - it seems what you are really after is posts from people who 'haven't got a clue'...


And who are YOU to decide what is and isn't helpful? You have no idea who reads this and takes what they need from it. Perhaps a new manager will read it and learn what should and shouldn't happen and be able to deal with the situation in the future. Perhaps someone is reading it and learns what they should do, [and how HR should react] if the situation happens in the future.

.

To be fair MrRedundant's posts were wrong, alarmist and very unhelpful to both Gwen and to anyone else who might be reading this thread. I think it is fair enough to describe that exchange as "less than helpful".

It would seem that you and ceridwen have some posting history and animosity to each other but this is perhaps not the right thread to let that bubble over as I imagine Gwen is stressed enough about the whole situation without having to wade through someone else's personal spat.

Sambucus_Nigra

Nicki wrote: »

:cool:

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

The 'less than helpful' posts have come from people qualified & with experience in [actual] management - it seems what you are really after is posts from people who 'haven't got a clue'...


And who are YOU to decide what is and isn't helpful? You have no idea who reads this and takes what they need from it. Perhaps a new manager will read it and learn what should and shouldn't happen and be able to deal with the situation in the future. Perhaps someone is reading it and learns what they should do, [and how HR should react] if the situation happens in the future.

.

To be fair MrRedundant's posts were wrong, alarmist and very unhelpful to both Gwen and to anyone else who might be reading this thread. I think it is fair enough to describe that exchange as "less than helpful".

It would seem that you and ceridwen have some posting history and animosity to each other but this is perhaps not the right thread to let that bubble over as I imagine Gwen is stressed enough about the whole situation without having to wade through someone else's personal spat.

Corrected your quoting....

Not at all - I just find someone telling other people what they can and cannot post to be ever so slightly annoying....but it's a common trait in some and brings out the annoyed responses in others.

KiKi

Although I don't necessarily agree with the principle of suspending the accuser in such situations, I have to agree with Mr Redundant's posts in saying that some organisations do suspend both.

In all the big organisations I've worked for, anyone making a serious accusation would be put on paid leave, partly to protect them, but also to ensure that no party is treated as 'guilty' until proven otherwise. It can be standard practice for many organisations. People may not agree with it, but it does happen.

I also agree that just because people don't like the principle of what Mr R said, it doesn't mean that those posts are 'less than helpful'. 'Helpful' doesn't necessarily equate to 'I agree with you', and sometimes it's *incredibly* helpful to see other perspectives or what other organisations do.


KiKi

RacyRed

KiKi wrote: »

Although I don't necessarily agree with the principle of suspending the accuser in such situations, I have to agree with Mr Redundant's posts in saying that some organisations do suspend both.

In all the big organisations I've worked for, anyone making a serious accusation would be put on paid leave, partly to protect them, but also to ensure that no party is treated as 'guilty' until proven otherwise. It can be standard practice for many organisations. People may not agree with it, but it does happen.

I also agree that just because people don't like the principle of what Mr R said, it doesn't mean that those posts are 'less than helpful'. 'Helpful' doesn't necessarily equate to 'I agree with you', and sometimes it's *incredibly* helpful to see other perspectives or what other organisations do.


KiKi

Firstly, Gwen, take good care of yourself and try not to let this issue prey on your mind too much over Christmas if you possibly can.

Suggesting that someone who has found themselves Gwen's situation goes on compasionate paid leave is sensible. It gives them time to recover from what might have been a very traumatic experience and the sometimes equally traumatic reporting process.

However IMO the term "suspension" should apply only to the accused. Sympathetic paid leave and suspension mean very different things, even though the effect of both is authorised time off work with full pay.

In these situations there is usually a perceived perpetrator and victim and until the matter has been investigated fully then the victim should be treated sympathetically while the accused's reputation is protected as much as is possible. Removing both parties from the workplace would go a long way to preventing gossip and would also go some way to protecting the victim from the inquisitions of collegues who refuse to accept being told "I cannot talk about it". And there usually is at least one of these in an office environment.

I don't envy Gwen being stuck in an office where other people realise something is going on that they are not being told about. It must make her situation even more difficult to manage. Offering her compasionate leave, or making it possible for her to work from home, woud have made a lot of sense in this situation.

Loanranger

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

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

Your harshness is not something to be proud of particularly on Gwen's thread nor is your propensity to rebuke anyone who dares to suggest your point of view is questionable.

Your posts are rude and bossy. No doubt you'll come back at me again all guns blazing in order to have the last word.

Sambucus_Nigra

Loanranger wrote: »

Your harshness is not something to be proud of particularly on Gwen's thread nor is your propensity to rebuke anyone who dares to suggest your point of view is questionable.

Your posts are rude and bossy. No doubt you'll come back at me again all guns blazing in order to have the last word.

Nope - still [politely] waiting for any of your ideas....of which of course we have had none.

BARGAINHUNTER!

I used to be a Personnel Officer so I can offer my perspective on this. Once the complaint had been brought to my attention I would have spoken to both partys and taken written statements. If the accuser wanted to put in a formal complaint, then I would have suspended the accused on full pay (innocent until proven guilty) and offered the accuser the option of paid leave on compassionate grounds. She would have been asked not to discuss this matter with any work colleagues both inside or outside work. Then I would have started to investigate this matter with the utmost urgency in order to bring it to a swift conclusion. Both partys would have been interviewed seperately (with the option of having someone else in with them as well), evidence gathered and then a swift decision made as to what will be done. However, if the police were involved I would co-operate with them and not hinder their investigation by launching a detailed one of my own. If the OP is still reading this thread and you do decide to involve the police then you must inform your Personnel Department that you have done so immediately.

If the police are involved and he is found guilty he would be instantly dismissed, or if police not involved and myself and my department felt it was appropriate he would also be dismissed.

However, if he was found not guilty either by the police or my department then he would be back at work, unless there was something in the emails that I deemed inappropriate and i would start dismissal proceeding on that basis. If he was allowed back to work then in this situation they obviously could not work together so something would have to be done work wise to ensure that this did not happen.

downshifted

BARGAINHUNTER! wrote: »

I used to be a Personnel Officer so I can offer my perspective on this. Once the complaint had been brought to my attention I would have spoken to both partys and taken written statements. If the accuser wanted to put in a formal complaint, then I would have suspended the accused on full pay (innocent until proven guilty) and offered the accuser the option of paid leave on compassionate grounds. She would have been asked not to discuss this matter with any work colleagues both inside or outside work. Then I would have started to investigate this matter with the utmost urgency in order to bring it to a swift conclusion. Both partys would have been interviewed seperately (with the option of having someone else in with them as well), evidence gathered and then a swift decision made as to what will be done. However, if the police were involved I would co-operate with them and not hinder their investigation by launching a detailed one of my own. If the OP is still reading this thread and you do decide to involve the police then you must inform your Personnel Department that you have done so immediately.

If the police are involved and he is found guilty he would be instantly dismissed, or if police not involved and myself and my department felt it was appropriate he would also be dismissed.

However, if he was found not guilty either by the police or my department then he would be back at work, unless there was something in the emails that I deemed inappropriate and i would start dismissal proceeding on that basis. If he was allowed back to work then in this situation they obviously could not work together so something would have to be done work wise to ensure that this did not happen.

Well done bargain hunter - excellent post. Accurate and compassionate.