Accused of sexual harrasment

[Pusillanimous]

My take on this is, even if you were "only joking", the fact you took a photo with your mobile will give rise to the fear that you intended to circulate it. As the manager, you did need to set yourself apart from your "mates". I would calm down and ensure you explain what happened in your investigatory interview in a collected way. I would apologise for the lapse in taste and good judgement, rather than take a defiant stance, which will only aggravate and irritate your bosses. Apologise to the woman and her mother and assure them that you are now wiser. Eat humble pie.

[madari]

Grovel...Grovel...Grovel.....and more grovel .....is the only route to go.........Good luck

[altobelli]

Robbie

 

I'm sorry to hear about your situation. I have a great dealof sympathy for you, and I know it takes courage to come onto a forum and talk about this. I have been in a situation similar to yours and what you are going through is stressful and distressing beyond belief. You should not have been suspended prior to an investigation, that is completely the wrong way for the employer to have approached this, and I seen no basis for the suspension. The employer has been stupid in taking this action, if you now complain about the line manager's actions then in fairness they should suspend her also.

 

What you have done is not harassment in the eyes of the law. You would have needed to intend, or ought to have known that your actions could cause a reasonable person to feel harassed for it to be regarded as such. The people involved, either directly or on a third party basis, would need to have actually been harassed, e.g. suffered or potentially suffered from stress, anxiety, etc., not just being uncomfortable or annoyed. You had a good relationship with your colleague and she has not been offended by your actions in any way. The mother, I would say, is probably angry at the carrying on involving her daughter and has spoken to her line manager as a result of this. The line manager, in my view is not uncomfortable, but rather has used the situation to pursue her own agenda against you. I would establish who it is that is claiming that they were harassed by your actions, and exactly what the details of the alleged harassment are. For the line manager to claim that they felt harassed when they weren't even there is a stretch of credibility in my view, and could be viewed as an abuse of third party harassment policy.

 

In my view you should strongly fight this. The difficulty is, and other contributors have pointed this out, the approach the company is likely to take, and I think there is a good chance you won't get a fair hearing. If you do apologise it may mean that you are dealt with more leniently and that you receive a warning rather than dismissal. I personally wouldn't apologise if you feel you haven't done anything wrong (and I don't believe you have), but if you take this approach the company may try to dismiss you. If you are going to defend yourself, it is important that you prepare as thorough a defence as possible, you need to make clear what the working atmosphere was like, the extent of informal 'banter' that occured, and who has felt harassed by your actions and exactly why. From your post, you and a female colleague were ridiculing the conduct of a male on the tube, your actions weren't discriminatory against females. It is very important that you establish exactly what you are being accused of - vague terms such as 'harassment', 'your actions made so and so feel uncomfortable' are not sufficient, the company may try and use terms such as these to make the issue seem more serious than it is. Your defence should be that in the circumstances your actions were reasonable, and that it was unreasonable for a reasonable person to feel harassed by them. Harassment is in the act complained of, not the person accused of the act, by this I mean that the person complaining of harassment (assumedly the line manager) must genuinely be harassed by what happened and not just because it involved you. She would have had to feel equally as harassed and take the same action, if what happened was between two females or, for example, involved the CEO of the company. Based on what you have said, I think that she has chosen to take action to get at you, and I think this action has been based on your gender. What you are now going through are feelings of anxiety and distress, precisely what the measures to prevent harassment are supposed to stop. So if you are going to defend this, I would be complaining about this line manager on the grounds of harassment. Whether this complaint would be upheld is another matter, but it could nonetheless be what has happened and should be investigated.

 

With regards to consulting a lawyer, by all means speak to a lawyer and take advice, but it is unlikely you will be able to have the lawyer accompany you to the disciplinary meeting, there is no statutory provision for this and the company would have to agree. You could ask for the meeting to be recorded, but again the company would have to agree. In any case, I would request signed minutes of the meeting after it has taken place, make sure these detail exactly what you have been accused of and your response to this.

 

Companies are obliged to take seriously any allegations of harassment, but I think this is often misunderstood to mean that they have to automatically uphold every complaint and take formal action. This is not what the law intends. Companies are terrified that they could be accused of not taking harassment seriously and can sometimes make a scapegoat of anyone even accused of harassment, whether or not harassment occured. A sophisticated approach would often provide better results. In your case, an informal approach involving dialogue between the people involved to allow everyone to understand each other's point of view would be more productive and would make it easier for everyone to move on. Moving on after something like this happens is something which many companies give little or no thought to. If someone genuinely feels uncomfortable by your actions, and it is reasonable in the circumstances for them to do so, the problem should be resolved, but this is better done by talking it through.

 

So I suppose the choice is to apologise or fight this. If you apologise, the company may be more lenient, but personally I would have a problem apologising when I felt I had done nothing wrong. Like you, I agree that the company must be careful with trying to impose their own ideas and mindset on individuals. The danger of apologising too is that you are then to an extent admitting harassment, and I can see why you are reluctant to do this, particularly given the circumstances of your case and the fact that legally you haven't harassed anyone. If you fight this you may be dismissed, although I think in the circumstances you could have a strong legal case should this happen. There is a big problem with this type of thing, the burden of proof in company disciplinary procedures is far lower than that in courts, as a result it is easy for the outcome of a disciplinary to be manipualted should the person holding it wish to do so to try and show that the accusation is being taken seriously or because of their own views on gender issues.

 

I am sorry, my advice is not clear cut, on the one had I've advised what is likely to result in a more lenient outcome for you, on the other I have said why this might not be the best route to go down. But if you do defend this, it is important that you give as much detail as possible in your defence, and get as detailed an account as possible about the accusations against you. Try and keep calm, although I know the stress this will be causing you, and prepare a defence which shows that your actions were reasonable in the circumstances. I wish you the best of luck.

[Emmzzi]

altobeli,

 

here is trhe definition of harrassment from the Equality act. You will note that of the people refered to as A and B, A does not have to directly act towards B. I think the relevant section is 1)b)ii), and the question is whether a reasonable person, say a member of the public who did not work in that office, would find the behaviour intimidating,

 

(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—

(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—

(i)violating B's dignity, or

(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

(2)A also harasses B if—

(a)A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and

(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).

(3)A also harasses B if—

(a)A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex,

(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and

©because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.

(4)In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—

(a)the perception of B;

(b)the other circumstances of the case;

©whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

(5)The relevant protected characteristics are—

age;

disability;

gender reassignment;

race;

religion or belief;

sex;

sexual orientation.

[altobelli]

Emmzzi, the question is though, would a reasonable person (and bear in mind that the likely complainant in this case wasn't even in the office at the time) have found the actions in question to be "intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive", as per sections 4 b) and c)? I don't think they would, the terms referred to in the Act are much stronger than annoyance or even unreasonable behaviour which might cause someone to feel uncomfortable. To look at this another way, if this happened in a pub, the chances of a member of the public complaining about it and a prosecution arising, never mind a conviction, would be close to nil.

 

The person making the complaint in this case has a strong reason for doing so which is unrelated to the OP's behaviour, and any complainant in a case like this should need to demonstrate why they felt the behaviour to constitute harassment, because people have different thresholds as to what they believe is acceptable. And where there is the possibility of an ulterior motive, the OP is entitled to ask in his defence whether the complainant genuinely objected to the action, i.e. whether the same concerns would have been raised were the conduct carried out by someone else.

 

Almost any behaviour could be unacceptable to some person, it is whether it is reasonable for it to be so and whether it actually caused the person to feel harassed. For example, a person given a particularly severe dressing down by their manager may feel humiliated, the manager/subordinate may be male/female or vice versa, but this does not automatically constitute harassment.

 

Also, it is questionable whether the OP's acts degraded anyone on the basis of gender, and whether harassment occurred. It isn't enough to say that an act could have caused harassment, it must actually have done so.

 

Very important too is how the allegation is handled with a view to the colleagues being able to maintain a working relationship going forward.

[Emmzzi]

We are talking about someone taking photos up a woman's skirt. Whether in jest or not, it's not really appropriate work behaviour. Even if it was not actually that kind of picture, to an outsider, it looked that way.

 

I know many many people who would find it offensive and oppressive that a senior member of staff was allowed to carry on doing that - it says "this company condones the behaviour." I don't know any employer who would take the risk of letting that slide. sure, there may be other motivations, but here, the employer 100% has to protect themselves now it has been formally drawn to their attention. They simply cannot afford not to, in case the next incident is more serious. In fact a really common next step would be a mass workforce education programme and a zero tolerance policy.

 

Perhaps OP should take a steer from their legal advisor on whether this could consititue harrassment; clearly we are not going to agree on this. From there we can give better advice on hw to handle things.

[altobelli]

The company does have an obligation to protect itself, but they also have a duty of care to employees, in this case all parties involved, not to over-react or make the situation out be something it wasn't, and to protect the reputation of everyone involved. It is not proper for the company to protect itself at the expense of its employees.

 

This is why it is very important that the OP gets in writing exactly what they are accused of, and that the language used to describe this is completely factual and describes the circumstances. If he receives something from HR saying that he is accused of taking photos up a woman's skirt, this is misleading. It suggests that he has been going around surreptitiously filiming women without their consent. In actual fact he, with the consent of the other person, pretended to take a picture and (accidentally) took one, singular and not plural picture. Someone who didn't see this has complained about it. What has happened is fairly trivial, the temptation for HR when preparing documentation is to present it in a one-sided way or to embellish the facts to make things look worse than they are so that they don't appear to be over-reacting. It is very important that any investigation centres around exactly what happened, the prevailing culture, and the surrounding circumstances. The facts should not be either played down or made out to be worse than they are.

 

There are also many people who wouldn't object to the behaviour and who may even find it amusing. It took place in the kitchen of a workplace, not in a restaurant full of customers. The company is obliged to consider the complaint, but taking no action is a valid option if they feel it isn't serious enough. If they decide to take action, it would be best to do so on an informal basis, perhaps tell both the people involved that they should consider behaving more professionally at work. This might resolve the problem without the need for further action. The problem with taking an overly formal approach is that views become entrenched, the OP's colleague, who has to date expressed no concerns may, now an investigation has been launched, feel under pressure to back up her mother and/or the line manager and say she felt uncomfortable, when in fact she didn't.

 

A legal advisor may well advise that this could cause harassment, almost any action or comment which doesn't relate to work (and some which are) could potentially do so. More important though, is whether a reasonable person would actually feel harassed by this.

 

With regards to workplace education programmes, I have doubts as to whether these actually educate anyone. I have worked for companies which ran these, and they were regarded as something of a joke or an inconvenience by male and female staff alike. I saw no evidence whatsoever that people paid any attention to what was said in them, and they usually result in a barrage of jokes and innuendo afterwards making reference to the programme. These programmes are misguided in my opinion, harassment is very subjective and preventing it is more about knowing people and their individual boundaries.

 

While it isn't good that we disagree, its good for the forum as its important that the OP sees different views as to how this situation might be dealt with. You work in HR, and you make valid points about how HR might deal with this. My concern is that the OP might be crucified for a situation where no harm was intended or, I believe, caused. I think in a lot of cases the approach taken by HR is wrong, and I believe there is a better way to deal with this type of matter, one which will have the desired outcome but lead to a sustainable working relationship for all involved.

[Sidewinder]

....and just to add

 

To Robbie - on sites like this you will always get a mix of views from different perspectives. Some will appear to be quite harsh, but often that is better for you in the long run as it says a lot about the perception of outsiders, and the people who ultimately judge you will not be aware of the culture within your group of colleagues, so will judge on the facts as they see them and against a standard of 'appropriate' behaviour. You may disagree with some of what is said, but you are likely to hear it again in in the coming days so please try not to attack those who offer comment. What you did was wrong - little doubt about that as one has to remember that if the behaviour upset anybody - whether directly involved or not, and irrespective of whether that person was motivated by other factors - and on that basis a heartfelt apology and acknowledgement of that lack of judgement is strongly recommended. It COULD certainly be construed as very serious, for reasons already outlined and legal advice is certainly appropriate as it COULD quite easily and justifiably affect your employment.

 

To everybody else - topics like this are always emotive and understandably some will have strong views. Whilst there is nothing here which goes beyond straight talking advice....yet - please keep to the subject in hand and try to remain dispassionate. The OP has sought advice, and whilst it is true that he needs to acknowledge a degree of wrongdoing, this isn't a forum for mudslinging.

[becky2585]

Altobelli, whilst you put forward a very clear and reasoned argument, even as a person who is generally biased towards employees, I just can't see how (in the context of the conversation) the employer would believe it was an accident.

 

The phones camera app would have needed to have been loaded and it was pointed up her skirt... I dont think any reasonable employer would find that was an accident. That being the case, it would amount to harassment. The key therefore is mitigation, remorse and highlighting the banter, not malicious intent.

[altobelli]

Thanks Sidewinder.

 

I've no problem at all with anything Emmzzi has said, its an emotive subject people feel strongly about and her advice is given in good faith and with the best intentions for the OP at heart. Also, she works in the same role as the people who will hear the grievance and will be able to advise well on how the grievance is likely to be handled.

 

I don't agree that the best approach is necessarily to apologise, the OP feels he has done nothing wrong and I can sympathise with that. The person who has complained appears to have done so out of malice. The accepted culture in the workplace is important, and what is appropriate must be measured against this. If he feels he has done nothing wrong, any apology is unlikely to be heartfelt.

 

This is the problem with the formal approach that has been taken. Were this to have been dealt with informally via discussion, the line manager could have had the opportunity to say to the OP that she was offended by what happened, but perhaps add that this had nothing to do with any prior issues. The OP would then have been in the position to considet things, and if they felt it reasonable to do so, or if they felt it might be best for relations going forward, could have apologised. But the formal approach taken means for the OP to apologise now is to aoplogise for sexual harassment, which they strongly believe they didn't do, and in which I believe he is right legally. It is difficult to force someone to apologise for something where they don't feel themselves in the wrong. Furthermore, if he apologises now, this could be taken as soem kind of acknowledgement that he is a harasser. The line manager, who has it in for him, could then place him under a spotlight and any future conduct, no matter how innocuous, could be complained about (it can actually be quite difficult to avoid doing or saying something which someone might feel is harassment) and HR will then proceed along the basis of 'we have received a further complaint...'. Apologising may well be the best way to keep his job given how this is likely to be handled, but I can see why he might not want to and I think the company have made it more difficult for him to do so. If the complainant has put the OP through this on a mailcious basis then there is a case for asking from an apology from her.

 

Becky, thanks for your post. I took it from the OP's post that the picture was an accident. I think it can happen - I have a very old mobile which it easy to dial a number on by mistake, and I think with more modern phones it could be quite easy to accidentally take a picture. But I don't think anyone is saying it wasn't an accident, he would appear to have his colleague as a witness who would say it was an accident versus the complainant who wasn't even there and who hasn't commented on whether the picture was accidental or not.

[o0robbie0o]

Hi everybody, thanks for your replies. Bit of a rough night. I told my wife and shes left to stay with friends. theres alot of stigma attached to those words i think. I havent read through all the post yet but thanks for posting.

 

Just a quick note. The purpose of the joke was to make fun of the situation on the tube. the actual picture was mostly of me looking down and of the woman also looking down and smiling. The reason someone would take offence to this is if they took it out of context. Its the same as talking to one of my African work colleagues about a subject containg the word 'black' Somebody walks past at that moment and thinks i'm being degrading and takes offence. Does this make sense?

 

Anyway, i do have a mild form of Aspergers which has plagued me throughout my career. It does manifest itself int he form of bad jokes but nothing ever malicous. I'm just not that type of person.

[becky2585]

Aspergers should definitely be used in mitigation - a classic symptom is misreading social situations. Do you consider yourself to be disabled?

[Emmzzi]

Ok, now we are getting to something we can use.

 

In order to demonstrate remorse would you perhaps contact your GP and ask about socialisation training? Thius would help you when you may not be reading cues correctly, to avoid difficult situations.

 

If you also researched and volunteered to attend diversity training that would help too.

 

I would find it very difficult to let someone go who was accepting that their behaviour may have been upsetting, and had already begun to take steps to remedy the position. In addition suggesting you would be like meditation with the offended individual may help (although you do not have an automatic right to know who they are.)

 

Do you think you could do any of that?

[Sidewinder]

san_d - I have unapproved your post as it contributes little to the thread other than to kick the OP further. Please refrain from further inflammatory questions. The OP has already made it clear how his wife took the news.

[altobelli]

Some of the recent posts may aid you in keeping your job, but the fact remains you haven't sexually harassed anyone in the legal sense of the term. A fair disciplinary hearing should reach that conclusion. You have adequate explanations at hand to defend yourself should you so choose, there is no real need to use anything else. Whether your arguments are heard fairly is another matter. Is the complainant upset or angry? Or are they laughing to themselves about what has happened? This is the type of thing that an investigation needs to establish.

 

While some of the recent suggestions are helpful, it is important that you are not painted as the one with some sort of problem with diversity. The line manager, if it was she who reported you, may just as equally benefit from training in diversity and what is appropriate use if the harassment policy. Diversity training should, though, be about helping people with different beliefs and values to co-exist, not preaching or telling people how to think.

 

Visiting the GP may assist with your Asperger's, and may offer some mitigation should you go down the route of apologising. I mentioned previously the problems you may face with apologising and acknowledging your 'guilt', the deleted post is the type of gossip which can spring up if you don't clear your name.

 

Mediation is I think, a very good idea (meditation quite possibly is too!), and should have happened on an informal basis before now. This is in my view the best way to resolve this type of thing, as long as it is entered into without pre-supposition of blame or attempting to aportion blame. This approach might even help you resolve other issues with the line manager.

[Emmzzi]

heh, yes, mediation! long day, tired typing hands!

[altobelli]

I know how you feel!

[ScarletPimpernel]

I know how you feel!

 

No you don't, and this goes to the heart of the OP's situation. It is a simple matter of fact that one person cannot know how another feels, though they may empathise.

 

In any sort of harassment case, it is the perception of the offending behaviour, and how it made the complainant that matters - and no-one else can say how that individual felt, or should have felt. One person's perception and experience of an event is unique.

[Emmzzi]

I am prepared to believe altobelli knows what it feels like to have tired hands

[altobelli]

Absolutely Emmzzi, I can completely relate, where I am its 1.30 in the morning!

 

I think you're over-simplicising things, ScarletPimpernel. First of all, it needs to be established how the complainant feels, it is not enough for someone merely to say they have been harassed, particularly in this case where they may have an ulterior motive in what they say, and for that to be accepted at face value. Harassment must be just that, not mere annoyance or anger. One can gauge to a large extent how another person feels, otherwise it would be impossible to try and establish harassment. There is a real skill to this though, it requires detaching one's own personal views and trying to put yourself in both party's shoes. The behaviour needs to be such that a reasonable person would feel harassed, it isn't just down to how the individual feels. You will have cases of harassment, perhaps involving predatory behaviour, which are fairly black and white, but many, if not most cases, you will find involve some shades of grey. People can and do claim they feel harassed when a conflict at work escalates or when they wish to exert power over another individual.

 

But importantly too, the sensitivities of both parties need to be considered. There is a huge stigma attached to the term 'harassment' and to keep its relevance it needs to be reserved for actions worthy of the name. Almost any behaviour which someone legitimately objects to in the workplace should be resolved, but assigning a label of harassment to it and stigmatising a person is not always the way to achieve this. People are far more likely in my opinion to look at their behaviour if they are asked to consider their actions and given the chance to express how another's actions might be affecting them in a consensual setting without having views imposed on them. In the OP's case, he and the other people involved will know what has happened. If he is branded a harasser and treated insensitively (suspended, etc.), other people will not, the likely view will be that something far more serious has occurred and the OP's reputation will be damaged as a result.

[Pusillanimous]

The line manager, if it was she who reported you, may just as equally benefit from training in diversity and what is appropriate use if the harassment policy. .

 

We don't know if it was this other line manager who reported it; that is conjecture for now? The OP needs to find out what the facts are. If the reportee was the woman's mother, it could be the woman herself who complained, but is too scared to report it directly, we do not know. As for the Asperger's, my view is we all need to take responsibiltiy for our actions and not look around for something/someone to blame. Many comedians use the excuse they are joking when making potentially offensive jokes. That is their livelihood. In the workplace you simply cannot make that type of joke or indulge in "horseplay". Go to the fact-finding investigatory meeting, give your version, be careful not to ascribe motive (you cannot know what the other line manager's motives were, and you might be completely wrong) and above all, listen carefully to what the charge is.

[stu007]

Hi

 

Yes the Aspergers may be a defence but IMO only if the employer had previous knowledge of this to bring it up at a disciplinary if the employer was unaware of this condition could be see as a way of mitigating your actions or they may sympathise with you and a slap wrist so to speak but its really how your employer would see it.

 

Please do seek advice on this.

 

If you do have to attend a disciplinary remember you can be accompinied by either a Union Rep or Work Colleague.

Edited October 19, 2012 by stu007

[altobelli]

We don't know if it was this other line manager who reported it; that is conjecture for now? The OP needs to find out what the facts are. If the reportee was the woman's mother, it could be the woman herself who complained, but is too scared to report it directly, we do not know. As for the Asperger's, my view is we all need to take responsibiltiy for our actions and not look around for something/someone to blame. Many comedians use the excuse they are joking when making potentially offensive jokes. That is their livelihood. In the workplace you simply cannot make that type of joke or indulge in "horseplay". Go to the fact-finding investigatory meeting, give your version, be careful not to ascribe motive (you cannot know what the other line manager's motives were, and you might be completely wrong) and above all, listen carefully to what the charge is.

 

Pusillanimous, it is conjecture as to who is accusing the OP, but based on his post, the line manager seems the most likely person. It is unlikely to be the colleague herself given the details of the post. Were it to be, it would be difficult to show harassment as the behaviour was part of the accepted working relationship between the two. The mother may have objected to the OP's behaviour towards the daughter, but I'm not sure that went as far as claiming that she felt harassed by it. But you're right, he needs to establish exactly of what he's being accused (not charged) and why this caused the person to feel harassed, if indeed they did. In his circumstances, to get a fair hearing he probably needs to know who has made the accusation, but his company aren't obliged to tell him. I think he should take legal advice on this point as his defence may be based on who accused him. It is very important though, that if he believes the accuser was the line manager and that if he believes the accusation was made with malicious intent, that he mentions this at the investigation. Otherwise, HR will not know of this potential ulterior motive. He really needs to defend himself, and if he feels that the person complaining was not actually harassed, then he needs to make this clear. He may be wrong, but that is for the investigation to establish, and he needs to make sure it is investigated. If his Aspergers is a mitigating factor (I personally know many non-Aspergers sufferers who would potentially act in the same way, but I'm not an expert on Aspergers, perhaps it could have influenced his actions), then he should mention this, again its a factor for the investigation to decide. If one is accused of something and feels strongly that the allegation is not true, then it is to be expected that the a person will defend themselves, in my view the consequences of the OP's actions have gone far beyond what he could have reasonably expected, to the extent that they are not his responsibility.

 

You cannot remove humour, banter or horseplay from the workplace. It is not possible or desirable, and no discrimination or harassment laws even attempt to do this. Where humour is offensive to particular groups, or where it creates an oppressive atmosphere for other people, it needs to be addressed, but the best way to do this in most cases is informally. Most people don't mean to offend or intimidate colleagues with their behaviour, if they do so and it is brought to their attention, the problem more often than not is resolved.

[o0robbie0o]

thanks for the posts.

 

I have received the decription of the accusation. I am accused of placing a mobile phone on the floor

next to a female work colleague. My purpose in doing so was to take a photograph or pretend to take a photograph and in doing so my actions impacted in her privacy and dignty.

 

Most likely the recipients mother and her line mamger made the complaint.

This happened on a friday and i was conversing normally with the daughter on monday, tuesday and wednesday. She was in no way scared, intimidated, upset or angry with me during those days. I did intend to take a picture of myself and her looking down. so, this is the picture i have which i will show them during the meeting. both of us are looking down at the camera. This is the cultre of our workplace which is accepted by herself and everybody else who works there. when i started it was a bit odd to see everybody like this but its easy to fall into it, especially for me. I didnt intend to upset anyone at all. How could i possibly benefit from that. I do understand that my actions were wrong but were certainly not harassment. I think if i do get dismissed i would have to get used to the lynch mob mentality that one or two posters exhibited here. Anyway, i am seeking advice from a private doctor on my condition and how i can control it better. It has affected my career very badly but still, i dont feel right using it as an excuse.

[Emmzzi]

Ok Robbie. I have done my best, but while you are still clinging to "It's just the culture", I can help no more. A culture where bottom slapping is accepted as the norm, is very unusual.

 

I have explained in some detail the legal position which those who work in HR and the legal professions seem to lean toward agreeing with, although none of us can predict 100% without investigation notes.

 

What did the legal adviser you were going to see say, out of interest?

 

Good luck, would be interested to know how you get on.