Colleague issue

Flyboy152

MissDelilah wrote: »

No witness, she didn't draw her attention to the *event* - my guess is HR will dismiss this case as there was no proof.

You need proof, not some flimsy emails - in which he denied having his member out.

No you don't. You just need reasonable expectation; a human resources department is not a court of law. From what the OP has told us, the e-mails are hardly flimsy. Asking her to model underwear is sexual harassment, whichever way you cut it.

Flyboy152

MissDelilah wrote: »

I can't believe you're even writing this! How many of us women have tucked our skirts into our knickers and not realised until someone points it out? That's exposing underwear.

how many women and yes I've seen one - have flashed more bra/boob than they realised (and not in a pub/club environment)?

yes, if he goes commando, has a lose/broken zip or forgets to button up or whatever his jeans/underwear on return from the toilet then it could well be a mistake.

If I had a pound coin for every time my boyfriend forgot to zip up or did it half way in public I'd be earning a small sum. And no he's not a flasher.

How many men forget that they have a boner sticking out of their trousers? The draught alone would give it away. Geez.

Flyboy152

MissDelilah wrote: »

Do you realise that the potential key witness may not want to be involved in your case? Also what does her evidence/story have to do with yours? apart from the fact he touched her bum? It has nothing to do with yours.

People often close ranks. and yes, the other girl obviously enjoyed it, god knows why. Also, re interviewing another witness the guy may feel victimised and the last thing the company wants is him bringing a case if he resigns and feels like he was forced to do so.

I also find it hard that you didn't clarify both your statements in your emails to him - why not put both or clarify? It sounds as if he had a get out clause here or a clear case of misunderstanding on his/your part.

Look, you really ought to stop and think now. You clearly know very little about sexual harassment cases as well as the burdens of proof in disciplinary matters. Have thought about what you are writing.

Flyboy152

MissDelilah wrote: »

!!!!!! - do you work in HR? nope - didn't think so. I work for a solicitors. They said they'd laugh this one out of court, for the precise reason, no proof. and the flimsy emails. oh and the total denial by the man. I think the police may well view this in the same way.

And if I recall correctly she hardly batted away or reported the underwear emails.

Really, seriously, stop typing now. You are making things much worse for yourself now.

Flyboy152

MissDelilah wrote: »

I work for a solicitors and this is what they told me. LOL.

go F yourself too, MATE

Your charm betrays your niaivity.

RacyRed

MissDelilah wrote: »

Very interesting. So not an admission on his part (or not in so many words).

Like I told you before - lots of companies need a witness so If I were you I'd originally yes, have cried wolf. Cause a scene, call it what you will.

It now seems as if maybe he was accidentally exposing himself.

I guess some of us here sort of knew the truth would out in the end.

I don't know how you can say this!

A guy sitting at a desk, wearing jeans, manages to accidentally expose his erect member to a female collegue and it is unintentional?

Chances of that happening have to be very slim indeed.

MissD, If you spoke to a solicitor about this you would have put your own slant on it during the telling, so I shall take your opinion and those connected with you with a very large pinch of salt. Please don't forget that 2 qualified solicitors have already posted on this thread and made their views very clear.

Hang on in there Gwen, he is fighting back, but the battle isn't over yet. (((hugs)))

Flyboy152

MissDelilah wrote: »

I actually feel that if his member was erect (was it, I can't remember now, so far back in thread) then even more reason for OP to go running and screaming to HR straight away. or to bring the matter straight away to the department and those around her.

I told my fellow solicitor exactly what happened and the followed up with the other emails at lunchtime actually today. He said (as another solicitor said here) "the guy is denying it in the emails so how do we even know he did expose himself?!"

This all seems fishy to me. The company don't seem as if they're taking it any further either. So OP's only other option is to go to police and bring a civil action.

Seriously, stop it now. You are NOT a solicitor.

GEEGEE8

MissDelilah wrote: »

!!!!!! - do you work in HR? nope - didn't think so. I work for a solicitors.

Yes dear, you 'work' for a solicitors, you aren't one though.

And whilst I'm here, you come across as a most unpleasant person with what you have written, maybe try to wind your neck in and stop being so judgemental.

Nicki

blue_monkey wrote: »

As above - how on earth can you get in trouble for it when he doesn't? That would certainly be a case of contructive dismissal IMO. Who wants to be working somewhere that they cannot investigate a sexual harrassment case correctly.

From what Gwen has posted, it sounds like HR have decided that the emails were inappropriate in a work context in both directions. In other words that both he and she were sexually suggestive in them, so any sanction will come down on them both.

That being said, if he is to receive a sanction, presumably a warning on his file for the emails, it will strengthen the case in the event of any further harassment. Gwen will need however to make sure she does not reply in any way to any further overtures but simply collect them as evidence and present them to HR when she feels she has enough for a new complaint.

As for the other affected girls if they were now to come forward and make their complaints, these would be new allegations, not covered by the existing investigation and disciplinary, and their allegations might well be sufficient to escalate the process along to the stage of fair dismissal.

I'm sorry it didn't work out more satisfactorily Gwen. It does sound like HR have been particularly wet.

starrystarry

MissDelilah wrote: »

This is exactly what I wanted to hear and what I had guessed all along. Both guilty of inappropriate behaviour.

Why should Gwen get away with trying to get a colleague sacked through involving another colleague? We don't know half the story here and it could be far more complex than Gwen has posted.

I agree with all you've posted Nicki.

You really are an unpleasant, judgemental, uninformed, self-important little madam. I'm sure Gwen feels unhappy enough today without you standing in judgement on her. Run along.