Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Gross misconduct

11th Aug 2009
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Please accept my apologies for absence. I have had much to deal with, not least a disciplinary hearing.

There’s no way of being subtle about this one: two members of staff were caught having sex in one of the company’s vans at the back of the yard here, outside the office.

Now, it did not help their cause that they were discovered by a person who has their own reasons for objecting to such behaviour, and who is now off work claiming they are suffering shock. And it does not help that the kafuffle they caused meant that there were several witnesses. But the reality was, neither denied it.

We have a rule against relationships at work. And we certainly have a problem with people having sex in the car park. So it was an issue I had to deal with.

Finding a charge took some brain-aching. I eventually decided upon gross misconduct resulting in risk of the company being brought into disrepute through abuse of its property. I liked that.

The male transgressor was terrified of being sacked or suspended in case his wife found out. I refrained from saying it was a little late to think of that. The female transgressor was quite indifferent: I think the fear of being caught was half the attraction for her; that she had been was a matter of little concern.

Gross misconduct usually carries the outcome of dismissal. But I did not want to threaten a marriage. That’s not my business. And candidly, the offence was not that serious so the two were found guilty and given first and final warnings. Any more transgressions and they’re out.

But boy does that take time.

And, if I’m honest – it was hard to keep a straight face at times.

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (8)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By alistair_king
12th Aug 2009 04:17

Oh la la!
I'd wondered at the silence.
Don't forget to bill them for undue wear and tear on the van's suspension.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By sage9
12th Aug 2009 08:05

Third party
I think I would be as concerned (or more concerned) about the third party who needs time off suffereing from shock or whatever. At least the motivation of the couple can be understood.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ian339
12th Aug 2009 10:28

Private use of a comany van?
You might consider whether this was a taxable benefit. But then I suppose they could always argue insignificant private use as being "intermittent and irregular, and it lasts only for short periods of time on odd occasions during the year".

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Aug 2009 14:32

Van Damn
At least you have the comfort, following your post on 5th August, of knowing that you are not alone in liking vans......!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Aug 2009 16:43

Those humps are everywhere...
The odd hump on the road is a nuisance, but they are at least outside the vehicle.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Aug 2009 17:05

@sage9
Unfortunately the December 2003 Christmas party episode no longer seems to be on the site, but those who have followed the CEO since he were nowt but an FD might have some suspicions why at least one member of staff might find something like this problematic.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By The CEO
12th Aug 2009 18:35

Long memory
Sage 09 - you have a long memory

But the complainant was not with us then!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Peter Bonetti
12th Aug 2009 18:39

Give 'em enough room!
I have a memory (possibly wrong) that the stock carried on vans was reduced a while back. Seems to have provided the space necessary (or desireable) for this extra contractual activity.

Thanks (0)