What level of proof for gross misconduct

Undervalued

warehouse wrote: »

Your answer was in post #5.

No it is not.

That may prevent any future post from being opened but it doesn't address the complete breakdown of trust.

Also, depending on the domestic setup, the nanny (live in?) may get her own post, as will the children, and may be required to forward items when the parents are away.

In any case if you have staff working in your house (or office come to that) it should not be necessary to lock away anything you don't want them to see. I have box files full of papers on bookshelves in my office at home and I trust my cleaner not to go through them in my absence. Just as I trust them not to steal the silver. You cannot lock everything away and you shouldn't have to.

sangie595

Undervalued wrote: »

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.

That being exactly what I said at post #14. Pay her off if trust has gone. That is a significantly different prospect than "sack her anyway because it's your right" and "since I think it's ok, it will be". That is what is not helpful.

However, the OP may also have other considerations to take into account. It's a small world for nannies. She's accused her of something she says she didn't do and then got rid of her, which is an accusation in itself no matter what is now said. After three years of trustworthy service. There may not be a queue of trustworthy people lining up to be employed by this family. Presumably, over three years this person has provided an entirely satisfactory service, and it seems to be perverse that they would risk their in this way after all this time. But equally, they are not powerless either.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sangie595 wrote: »

That being exactly what I said at post #14. Pay her off if trust has gone. That is a significantly different prospect than "sack her anyway because it's your right" and "since I think it's ok, it will be". That is what is not helpful.

And who said that, except some mythical person you have invented? If you want to stop discussing that issue, stop slipping in ridiculous misinterpretations.

xapprenticex

Have you bought that secure post box yet? It seems the simple solution.