What level of proof for gross misconduct

sangie595

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

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?

I didn't say "wrong and illegal". I said "wrong and unlawful". It remains unlawful whatever you say. If you wish to debate whether it is wrong or not, then I say it is wrong, and by your own reasoning, if I believe something to be the case then it is the case. Which returns us to the case in point - the OP believes something without any evidence it is true. Belief also doesn't make something true.

So, basically, you believe that employers should not have to treat people fairly, and that it is their right to dismiss people on a whim for any reason they wish? You are making the Tories sound reasonable. Even they think that should only be true for two years.

aife

This sounds very odd to me.
If your mail really is being opened have you considered the possibility that it's one of your kids ?

JJG

aife wrote: »

This sounds very odd to me.
If your mail really is being opened have you considered the possibility that it's one of your kids ?

In particular the one who might be changing schools. (Obviously this depends on how old they are)

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

I didn't say "wrong and illegal". I said "wrong and unlawful". It remains unlawful whatever you say. If you wish to debate whether it is wrong or not, then I say it is wrong, and by your own reasoning, if I believe something to be the case then it is the case. Which returns us to the case in point - the OP believes something without any evidence it is true. Belief also doesn't make something true.

So, basically, you believe that employers should not have to treat people fairly, and that it is their right to dismiss people on a whim for any reason they wish? You are making the Tories sound reasonable. Even they think that should only be true for two years.

Guys, this is not helping the OP! Nor does it help to be political.

What is relevant is, as you say, the law but also the likelihood of any claim actually being made.

In any civil matter it is only relevant if somebody acts outside the law if it is actually challenged. Individuals and companies frequently take calculated risks in this respect. That is what I am suggesting the OP does. Clearly, as they are able to employ a full time nanny, they have reasonable means. Only they can balance their (presumed) desire for a peaceful life with an understandable desire not to have their privacy (apparently) invaded by an employee who, given their job, they need to trust implicitly.

If I was in the OP's position I would take the necessary steps to dispense with this nanny's services, with the minimum possible hassle, even if that costs some money. Clearly trust has broken down and that is going to be difficult or impossible to restore.

Nicki

It's definitely not any of the children doing this - one of the envelopes which appeared to have been opened arrived after they had all left for school and I discovered it before any of them returned home. The nanny had been alone in the house at the time.

There have been more than two envelopes which seemed to have been opened. Two, there is no doubt about it. And only letters addressed to "the parents of..." are showing signs of being tampered with. If this was just normal wear and tear in the post, or a nosey postman, I'd expect the damage to be spread across all my mail.

I'm not unaware that she has employment rights and needs to be treated fairly. However as others have pointed out, it's not nice to feel my privacy has been invaded in this way. I don't have "trust issues" as someone suggested, but equally I'm not blind and not a fool. Short of catching her in the act however, it seems like there is nothing I can do about this.

happyandcontented

Maybe she just can't contain her couriosity at anything to do with her "charges"?

Although I thought you said one letter which was opened contained personal information, I inferred that to mean information concerning you, but I now suppose you meant the information was about one of your children?

Undervalued

Nicki wrote: »

It's definitely not any of the children doing this - one of the envelopes which appeared to have been opened arrived after they had all left for school and I discovered it before any of them returned home. The nanny had been alone in the house at the time.

There have been more than two envelopes which seemed to have been opened. Two, there is no doubt about it. And only letters addressed to "the parents of..." are showing signs of being tampered with. If this was just normal wear and tear in the post, or a nosey postman, I'd expect the damage to be spread across all my mail.

I'm not unaware that she has employment rights and needs to be treated fairly. However as others have pointed out, it's not nice to feel my privacy has been invaded in this way. I don't have "trust issues" as someone suggested, but equally I'm not blind and not a fool. Short of catching her in the act however, it seems like there is nothing I can do about this.

There is, as I have said, at a cost. You simply pay her off with a legally binding settlement agreement.

Even if you get "proof" you could end up facing an unfair dismissal claim and that will cost you money to defend even if you win.

You clearly no longer trust this person so why keep them in your house looking after your children? Unless it is 100% proved that somebody else is doing it, however unlikely, your trust is not going to be restored. Even if that were to happen how would the nanny then feel about you?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sangie595 wrote: »

I didn't say "wrong and illegal". I said "wrong and unlawful".
This makes no difference at all
It remains unlawful whatever you say.
Where have I said anything different? Stop building straw men.
If you wish to debate whether it is wrong or not, then I say it is wrong, and by your own reasoning, if I believe something to be the case then it is the case.
Another ridiculous straw man. I said "What I think is the only thing relevant to the issue of morality", not "what I think determines morality", and certainly not "What I think determines reality". Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Which returns us to the case in point - the OP believes something without any evidence it is true. Belief also doesn't make something true.
Who on earth said it did?

So, basically, you believe that employers should not have to treat people fairly, and that it is their right to dismiss people on a whim for any reason they wish? You are making the Tories sound reasonable. Even they think that should only be true for two years.

Yes, if they are employing someone in their own home to care for their children. I would change the law to make a separate case of that. Not a difficult concept.

Nicki

happyandcontented wrote: »

Maybe she just can't contain her couriosity at anything to do with her "charges"?

Although I thought you said one letter which was opened contained personal information, I inferred that to mean information concerning you, but I now suppose you meant the information was about one of your children?

Yes one letter came in addressed to me but with markings which showed the sender was the local authority - that did not relate to the children at all and was private and confidential to me.

warehouse

Your answer was in post #5.