What level of proof for gross misconduct

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

If I had a trust issue as significant as this with the person who was looking after my children, I would sack them immediately, and worry about any repercussions later.

Why haven't you done this? Do you find that you have such trust issues regularly and regard them as not out of the ordinary?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Spendless wrote: »

Would the kids be home when she opens the mail, if she does? Are they old enough/able enough to tell you?

I am not convinced that telling the kids "Spy on the nanny, she may be reading our mail" is ever going to be a positive course of action.

sangie595

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

If I had a trust issue as significant as this with the person who was looking after my children, I would sack them immediately, and worry about any repercussions later.

Why haven't you done this? Do you find that you have such trust issues regularly and regard them as not out of the ordinary?

This is, of course, an eminently sensible course of action. Just dismiss someone with three years employment immediately for doing something you can't even prove they have done. If you have several £,000s for legal costs, several more and possibly more for the award against you that is going to happen, and the time to spend several months fighting a tribunal you can't win. Seriously, I don't think it's the OP who has "trust issues" if you consider dismissing people for no reason at all a good idea.

TBagpuss

OK, you have spoken to her, she has denied it, and you have no proof.

I think your best bet is to get a locking letter box. That way, if it is the postal worker / delivery ofice then you can complain to them and will be able to make the point that noone had access to the mail so it was definitely being delivered in that condition, and if the problem stops then then you can, if you want, reopen the conversation with the nanny.

As others have said, there are 'nanny cams' available but I am not sure of the legalities of covertly filming someone so you may want to to get some advice about that before doing anything.

What makes you think the nanny may be opening the mail? Is it possible that one of the children has done so? After all, they surely have an even biger interest thn the Nanny does in issues relating to schools.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sangie595 wrote: »

This is, of course, an eminently sensible course of action. Just dismiss someone with three years employment immediately for doing something you can't even prove they have done. If you have several £,000s for legal costs, several more and possibly more for the award against you that is going to happen, and the time to spend several months fighting a tribunal you can't win. Seriously, I don't think it's the OP who has "trust issues" if you consider dismissing people for no reason at all a good idea.

I wouldn't get rid of them for "doing something I can't even prove they have done". I'd tell them we didn't need a nanny any more and pay them their notice.

This is a person in your house looking after your children. Not an office employee. If you genuinely think they are dishonestly reading your mail in your absence, how can you be happy to have them continue there?

happyandcontented

The problem is that I assume the OP does need a Nanny, so if she then goes on to employ someone in the same role she may still have an issue. That said, I do agree with you.

rach_k

Is the nanny particularly stupid? In a house with children, a glue stick is rarely very far away so either she is too stupid to stick the envelopes closed again or it really wasn't her!

MEM62

pinkshoes wrote: »

I'd go with a lockable letter box to prevent access, or basic CCTV to catch her in the act!

You could send yourself some interesting looking letters, perhaps containing UV ink inside one, so a UV light would tell you if she read it...

If you put CCTV into a place of employment your staff need to know about it. (Although I do not believe every camera location has to be specified)

As for the UV ink, on what basis would the OP have a right to physically examine her employee? An absolute non-starter.

Ozzuk

I'd still record because right now you don't know for sure. If you can confirm it I'd sit down and say we have proof that you have been opening our mail, I'll offer you the chance to resign with a reference stating dates you've worked here and no more said on the matter. If this isn't accepted then we'll be dismissing you.

I'd have thought nanny work would rely very heavily on references so may be enough of a threat.

Alternatively, put a camera up outside, tell your nanny you have cctv installed, but also put covert ones in place.

sangie595

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I wouldn't get rid of them for "doing something I can't even prove they have done". I'd tell them we didn't need a nanny any more and pay them their notice.

This is a person in your house looking after your children. Not an office employee. If you genuinely think they are dishonestly reading your mail in your absence, how can you be happy to have them continue there?

And, as the OP has already pointed out, this would not help as they would immediately rehire a nanny which would be proof of unfair dismissal.


I think people need to get this into proportion (including the OP). The OP states that there may have been TWO letters opened. Maybe. Yes, if any letters are opened by the nanny, that would be wrong. But two letters over several weeks is not categorical or clear proof of anything. I do get letters where the envelope hasn't stuck down properly. I have had both letter and parcels that look like the dog got at them prior to arriving! I have once had a letter where there was more letter than envelope. And once the postman opened a letter because the letter had slipped and he couldn't read the address (although he still shouldn't have done that). These things do happen. And I also tend to agree with those pointing out that if the woman is smart enough to be a nanny for the kids, one would hope that she is smart enough to cover her tracks - especially since this has already been mentioned to her and happened again. I would tend to say that if it has been mentioned, and has happened again, there is a very good chance that she really is telling the truth and hasn't done it!


I appreciate that the OP is clearly upset about her suspicions. What about the nanny that so many people are intent on booting out of the door without a shred of evidence? This is her job. Being sacked for this will mean she will struggle to ever find work again. How many of you would like to be unceremoniously booted out of the door from your employment because the boss fancies sacking you for no good reason? And if the nanny posts, how many of you will be saying that she should take her employer to a tribunal? I will, I know. Because she has grounds and a case. There is no point in bemoaning the powers that so many employers abuse on a regular basis on here if you are simply going to tell an employer to do exactly that when it suits your advice. Dismissal in these circumstances is wrong and it is unlawful.