What level of proof for gross misconduct

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

It may be unlawful; whether it is wrong is a subjective matter.

To me if you are employing someone to come into your house and look after your children then you have the perfect moral right simply to cease doing this for whatever reason you choose. Whether she has done anything or not, trust is clearly not there.

Yes, you have to abide by legalities and pay them whatever they are due in way of notice. No, of course you don't sack them for something you can't prove. You simply terminate it with no fault and both get on with your lives. She will not "struggle to find work ever again". Nannies must be used to moving on as people's circumstances change and kids grow up; it's surely part of the job. I don't think anyone, morally, has an obligation to continue taking someone into their own home, giving them custody of their children and paying them if they don't trust them. Even if they don't like them. They are in your house with your kids. This makes it a different situation.

Undervalued

Step one would be to get some hard evidence that the mail is being opened by somebody, currently you don't even have that.

It must be possible to send some mail to yourself with some kind of internal seal that will get broken if opened in the normal way. You can cut the envelope open in such a way that it will not break the seal in order to find out if somebody has been in.

If you get proof that something has been happening then you can move on to trying to establish who. Could you get a friend to put envelope through the door that looks as if it has been posted? That would eliminate the postman.

Sadly it will need a bit of effort to get some evidence in case of a claim if you dismiss her.

Alternatively, if money is more plentiful that time, offer her a settlement agreement to go quietly in exchange for some money and a decent reference. You will need to get a solicitor involved to make sure it is watertight.

sangie595

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

It may be unlawful; whether it is wrong is a subjective matter.

To me if you are employing someone to come into your house and look after your children then you have the perfect moral right simply to cease doing this for whatever reason you choose. Whether she has done anything or not, trust is clearly not there.

Yes, you have to abide by legalities and pay them whatever they are due in way of notice. No, of course you don't sack them for something you can't prove. You simply terminate it with no fault and both get on with your lives. She will not "struggle to find work ever again". Nannies must be used to moving on as people's circumstances change and kids grow up; it's surely part of the job. I don't think anyone, morally, has an obligation to continue taking someone into their own home, giving them custody of their children and paying them if they don't trust them. Even if they don't like them. They are in your house with your kids. This makes it a different situation.

Sorry, but no, it doesn't. The law has no clause that says that it only applies if people are employed outside private households. There is no "different situation". It is, in law, the exact same situation. And he exact same thing that can happen to any other employer can happen to the OP. What you think is irrelevant. The law is all that matters, and the law is clear on this point. You cannot simply dismiss them, pay notice, and get another nanny.

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

Sorry, but no, it doesn't. The law has no clause that says that it only applies if people are employed outside private households. There is no "different situation". It is, in law, the exact same situation. And he exact same thing that can happen to any other employer can happen to the OP. What you think is irrelevant. The law is all that matters, and the law is clear on this point. You cannot simply dismiss them, pay notice, and get another nanny.

Sangie is of course correct that legally it makes no difference.

I do agree however with the sentiment and understand how difficult it is under a domestic situation like this.

I think the OP should take some legal advice about the likely cost of a successful unfair dismissal claim. Then they have three choices....

Compile evidence to successfully defend such a claim. (Although even then it will cost money to defend the claim and will involve a lot of stress).

Take a gamble that there won't be a claim but be prepared to spend some money settling if necessary.

or, as I said earlier

Take the cheque book approach and offer a settlement agreement.

Given the circumstances with a full time live in nanny etc, it may well be that it is worth a few thousand for peace of mind and freedom from hassle.

Yes, if the OP's suspicions are correct it is "wrong" that she should have to put her hand in her pocket but sometime you just have to look at the bigger picture. Do you really want the worry and stress? It is possible that the nanny may try to pass the blame on to the children! Do you really want that?

leslieknope

surely the cheapest option is to get a lockbox for the post? if letters come through perfectly you know it's the nanny. if they don't then you know it's the postie/sorting office.

stator

CCTV or send yourself an exploding dye pack in the post. If she looks like this when you get home, you know it's her

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sangie595 wrote: »

Sorry, but no, it doesn't. The law has no clause that says that it only applies if people are employed outside private households. There is no "different situation". It is, in law, the exact same situation. And he exact same thing that can happen to any other employer can happen to the OP. What you think is irrelevant. The law is all that matters, and the law is clear on this point. You cannot simply dismiss them, pay notice, and get another nanny.

As I specified that I was speaking morally, and not legally, the law is entirely irrelevant and what I think is the only thing that is relevant.

Malthusian

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

As I specified that I was speaking morally, and not legally, the law is entirely irrelevant and what I think is the only thing that is relevant.

Well that's one way to win an argument.

Morally I think that 2 + 2 = 5. As I'm speaking morally and not mathematically, what I think is the only thing that is relevant.

If however we make the basic assumption that the OP does not want to spend thousands of pounds + mental stress fighting an unfair dismissal claim, the law is quite clearly not irrelevant. If the OP's post ran "What level of proof do I need to take disciplinary action against my nanny, bearing in mind that I don't mind spending thousands of pounds on an unfair dismissal settlement but I am concerned about what Scorpionderooftrouser might think morally" that would be a different matter.

Off topic, I'm amazed that we are nearly two pages into this thread and no-one has come out with the ancient urban legend that it's a criminal offence to open someone else's post.

Undervalued

Malthusian wrote: »

Well that's one way to win an argument.

Morally I think that 2 + 2 = 5. As I'm speaking morally and not mathematically, what I think is the only thing that is relevant.

If however we make the basic assumption that the OP does not want to spend thousands of pounds + mental stress fighting an unfair dismissal claim, the law is quite clearly not irrelevant. If the OP's post ran "What level of proof do I need to take disciplinary action against my nanny, bearing in mind that I don't mind spending thousands of pounds on an unfair dismissal settlement but I am concerned about what Scorpionderooftrouser might think morally" that would be a different matter.

Off topic, I'm amazed that we are nearly two pages into this thread and no-one has come out with the ancient urban legend that it's a criminal offence to open someone else's post.

Is it an "urban legend"? I thought it was still an offence to interfere with the Royal Mail? However I didn't mention it because even if that is so I would imagine it is almost impossible to actually get the police to investigate.

The OP could of course have some private forensic work carried out to establish if the nanny's fingerprints are inside a sealed letter. I suspect though the cost of having that done by a qualified expert would be more than settling a claim, if indeed there was a claim!

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Malthusian wrote: »

Well that's one way to win an argument.

Morally I think that 2 + 2 = 5. As I'm speaking morally and not mathematically, what I think is the only thing that is relevant.

If however we make the basic assumption that the OP does not want to spend thousands of pounds + mental stress fighting an unfair dismissal claim, the law is quite clearly not irrelevant. If the OP's post ran "What level of proof do I need to take disciplinary action against my nanny, bearing in mind that I don't mind spending thousands of pounds on an unfair dismissal settlement but I am concerned about what Scorpionderooftrouser might think morally" that would be a different matter.

Your example is frankly nonsense. Mathematics has no moral aspect. I specified, at least twice, that I was addressing the moral question, on account of the assertion that it was "wrong and illegal". By using the phrase "wrong and illegal", Sangie introduced the moral question, not me. It is clear from that that "wrong" was distinct from "illegal".

Why are you saying that the law is not irrelevant to the original question? I never for a moment claimed that it was; simply that it was irrelevant to the point I was making.

Is there anything else I need to clarify for you?