Colleague issue

Uncertain

ceridwen wrote: »

Certainly - at the VERY VERY least H.R. have got to accept it would be totally unreasonable to expect you to have any sort of contact with him again (even if they failed in their duties to deal with him appropriately).

Why?

I have no reason to doubt the OP's word. However it is perfectly possible to imagine a scenario where totally unfounded accusations are made up for whatever reason.

I fully understand that the firm only need a reasonable belief to take disciplinary action. This is far short of the level of proof the police would require.

However, based on what I read here I don't see enough for a even a reasonable belief. I expect the firm are of the same view.

Sorry!

gwen80

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

I think you need to bear in mind the line 'Well he would wouldn't he?'......

It's really below the belt though (pardon the pun).

ceridwen

UNCERTAIN

Even if H.R. should decide at the end of the day not to take any action against him (for whatever reason) - then any halfway decent H.R. Dept will ensure that the two "parties" to this are separated (ie work in separate Departments or the like). Reason - to ensure there are no further complaints - from either party.

gwen80

ceridwen wrote: »

Are you in a Union? Best as well to join an appropriate one if you arent.

No. My boss is the union rep!!! (Not the female one, but my direct reporting manager).

Errata

gwen80 wrote: »

It's really below the belt though (pardon the pun).

He's going to try everything he can to get out of this and keep his job. Put yourself in his shoes and see this from his perspective.
Some have doubted you, I don't know where the truth lies - how could I? I do know that only a woman who was missing a hell of a lot of slates off her roof would put herself through all this palaver if it had no foundation.

gwen80

I know there is an email where he offers to send me p0rn. I decline his offer, obviously. I can't find it because the search facility on the email is down.

Uncertain

Errata wrote: »

I do know that only a woman who was missing a hell of a lot of slates off her roof would put herself through all this palaver if it had no foundation.

I used to know the head of the scientific department of a regional police force very well (now retired). It never ceased to amaze him how may serious allegations were scientifically proven not to be true.

That is not in any way a comment on this issue - just a sad fact of life.

starrystarry

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

And what exactly do you do for a living?

I'm a life & disability underwriter for an insurance company. Not that my occupation has any relevance here, since (unlike some people) I wasn't claiming any professional expertise with regards to this issue.

Flyboy152

MissDelilah wrote: »

I agree with most of the last 2 pages on here.

I think that I got carried away with myself and my opinions, and yes, stupidly on my high horse and a bit judgmental too.

For the record, I am a PA/secretary who is half way through a Legal Executive Course. I spend 1.5 days working as a LE. The rest of the time I am a PA (and yes, I do take the post down etc as it's a small office). I am certainly not ashamed of that aspect as I share it with another colleague. I am undecided as to exactly I will specialise in but employment law does not interest me that much, most of my cases are not employment law based. However, I do discuss some cases with a colleague who deals in civil law and employment law and I also prepare papers for him for barristers/court.

Rubbish. You cannot work as a legal executive if you have not yet qualified as one.

Flyboy152

gwen80 wrote: »

I haven't read all the posts since I last posted, but I've gathered MissDelilah isn't being very nice. To be honest, I've thought her posts have been rather bizarre. She goes from being incredibly defensive of me (and accusing another poster of being the same as the guy involved in this case) to going completely the other way. She seems to constantly need to refer to her own experiences of sexual harassment, it's very odd. I suspect she has issues relating to her own sexual harassment.

Anyway, ignoring MissD and onto things that actually matter. Mr F's interview notes make for interesting reading. He appears to contradict himself on a few matters.

He says he 'has absolutely not exposed himself'. At another point, it seems from the notes that he agrees with a statement by the interviewer that he categorically denies it. Later on he says 'I was not out of my jeans. Not sure why I apologised'. Even later on, he says 'I don't think I was, was I back from the toilets and exposed unintentional' (I presume this last word is actually meant to be 'unintentionally').

He also says 'we have always had a good relationship, but got on well'. Later on, 'we have a normal relationship'.

There is part of the interview notes that says [missing part of interview]...what the heck is that?

Don't dissect the transcripts too much, you will get bogged down in too much unnecessary and irrelevant detail.

Oh and I've been informed that the disciplinary will be by managers from my department (i.e. his mates)...marvellous!

This is so not on. You must ask for an independent panel. I can't believe they are exposing (forgive the pun ) to so much risk.