Cheating Hurt by Infidelity
Betrayal Wayward Donations lying
Welcome

Forums

Guidelines

Find a Local Counselor

The Healing Library

Media

Contact Us
lies
cover
In Association with Amazon.com
Support
Infidelity -
-
Find a Local Couselor
like us on facebook
You are not logged in. Login here or register.
[Register]
Newest Member: waugh (44311)

General Post Reply     Print Topic    
User Topic: Question: can anyone offer corporate HR advice??
ms521
♀ Member
Member # 12008
Default  Posted: 2:33 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Corporate policy at WH's place of work says that all inter-office relationships need to be disclosed to HR. For obvious reasons, WH and MCOW didn't disclose their 3 year affair. Now that it's over, she is making work extremely difficult for him.

WH wants to find a new job, but that will take some time in his field. In the meantime, he just wants to do his job for the company's clients without headache, hassle, and threats from OW. OW has made it clear that she hates WH and hates working with him (she told him this week that she holds him 100% responsible for what happened between them, apparently, she is blameless), yet she refuses to give up any of their shared accounts (personally, I think she LIKES the drama and grief she's giving WH as "punishment" for dumping her). Unfortunately, her work on their shared accounts is slacking at best and unprofessional at worst. This week, she punted a bunch of work that should've been her responsibility back onto WH, and he's so sick of her unprofessional attitude that he's considering telling his HR rep that he and OW can no longer work together. Of course, at that point, it will likely come out as to WHY they can't work together...

My HR-related question: could a large, Wall Street-type corporation fire WH on the spot over a now-ended, non-disclosed relationship? Would they fire both of them? His performance over the last year has been stellar, & if you take the A out of the equation: his clients like him, he gets the job done, he generates significant revenue, and he is well-respected. OW, on the other hand, is expendable to the group and easily relocated to support other team leaders. WH can also now provide documentation to support the fact that her behavior over the last month is unprofessional and interfering with his ability to do his job.

Should he report it? Should he stay quiet and hope to find another job soon?

(and yes... BELIEVE ME... I have informed him several times that he "deserves" the headache and hassle at work, that sucking it up is pretty much the logical consequence of the choices he made over the last few years, and that this really should be a lesson to him NOT TO SLEEP WITH HIS COWORKERS!!)


Madhatters.
Me: FWW (STA 2002), now a BW.
Him: FWH (OW1: 2006-2007), now just WH (OW2: 2010-2013)

I will never stop trying... because when you find 'the one' you never give up. (Cal Weaver)


Posts: 429 | Registered: Sep 2006
Jennifer99
♀ Member
Member # 39551
Default  Posted: 2:38 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

I would really just have a bunch of questions.

Is your state an at-will employment state?

Is your read of his stellar work ability and her sucky work ability merely based on what he says?

Has his employer proved that they mean their written policies and enforce them in other ways?

Does he have any documentation of their A and that it was a mutual relationship vs. an antagonistic/harassing type situation?

Do they share a supervisor that is responsible for the quality of their work? Is this supervisor aware of her "punting" and him taking all the responsibility?

Non-disclosed...is his work very reliant on the fact that he is above board and honest?

Why does it matter if they would fire him or both of them?

Can he not handle the work and simply enjoy the fact that she hates him and he can now work in peace if at least that much harder?

[This message edited by Jennifer99 at 2:40 PM, July 4th (Thursday)]


Posts: 556 | Registered: Jun 2013
ms521
♀ Member
Member # 12008
Default  Posted: 3:10 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Thanks, Jennifer - those are all fantastic questions and exactly the kind of thing I was looking for (in terms of wondering whether we'd thought though all the bigger answers). Given that I had to Google "at will employment," I'm guessing WH should seriously consider sucking it up, or leave.

Can he not handle the work and simply enjoy the fact that she hates him and he can now work in peace if at least that much harder?

And I love that. Seriously, that's what I'm going to highlight when I show him this list.

Appreciate it!!


Madhatters.
Me: FWW (STA 2002), now a BW.
Him: FWH (OW1: 2006-2007), now just WH (OW2: 2010-2013)

I will never stop trying... because when you find 'the one' you never give up. (Cal Weaver)


Posts: 429 | Registered: Sep 2006
Jennifer99
♀ Member
Member # 39551
Default  Posted: 3:13 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

FWIW I'm like the anti-corporate HR HR person. I'm thankful my company likes me that way.

A more responsible post may have been to direct him to an employment attorney or some straightlaced shit like that.

Sorry.


Posts: 556 | Registered: Jun 2013
isadora
♀ Member
Member # 29130
Default  Posted: 3:19 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

If your state is "at will" his employer can terminate employment for any reason.

How has your WH company handled other policy infractions (not necessarily infidelity related)? That would be a better indicator of how they may handle this situation.


Me: BW Him: WH
Married: 10 yrs
4 children: DDs 6&4; DSs 2& baby
2 Affairs - 2010 year long PA/EA, 2008 2 month online EA
Multiple D-Days

I can only control myself, no one else. I do not have that kind of power.


Posts: 4501 | Registered: Jul 2010 | From: Back home again in Indiana
ms521
♀ Member
Member # 12008
Default  Posted: 3:23 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

I'm glad you're anti-corporate HR... FWIW, I think the "HR" at WH's place of employment is ridiculous. Their employee handbook is impossible... not that I think they need to have an entire chapter on "when you sleep with your married coworker," but frankly - maybe the should!! The entire company promotes "employee bonding" and will often throw parties and other special, after-hours events to which spouses are NEVER invited. They might as well advertise it: come work with us, we'll keep your money and your secrets.

In truth, it's just one more reminder of why I think he should just leave them behind and move on. Frankly, I'd almost be relieved if he would just get fired (it would force him to just move forward hard with the job hunt), but the vindictive part of me doesn't want HER to win in any degree, if that makes any sense.


Madhatters.
Me: FWW (STA 2002), now a BW.
Him: FWH (OW1: 2006-2007), now just WH (OW2: 2010-2013)

I will never stop trying... because when you find 'the one' you never give up. (Cal Weaver)


Posts: 429 | Registered: Sep 2006
Jennifer99
♀ Member
Member # 39551
Default  Posted: 3:25 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Vindictively the very best scenario is he finds a great new place to go where you are comfortable with him working and "she" has to stay there and do ALL the work

Posts: 556 | Registered: Jun 2013
ms521
♀ Member
Member # 12008
Default  Posted: 3:27 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

FYI, our state IS an "At Will Employment" state, but apparently there's a clause stating that an employee cannot be fired for "political or recreational activities outside of work."

I wonder if we could define OW as a "recreational activity outside of work?"

[This message edited by ms521 at 3:27 PM, July 4th (Thursday)]


Madhatters.
Me: FWW (STA 2002), now a BW.
Him: FWH (OW1: 2006-2007), now just WH (OW2: 2010-2013)

I will never stop trying... because when you find 'the one' you never give up. (Cal Weaver)


Posts: 429 | Registered: Sep 2006
Jennifer99
♀ Member
Member # 39551
Default  Posted: 3:34 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

You can look at that this way...

Is 'recreational activity' defined?

No?

If not would he like to defend his definition of such in a law suit?


Posts: 556 | Registered: Jun 2013
sisoon
♂ Member
Member # 31240
Default  Posted: 5:10 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

IMO, the HR issues come down to the policies, the way they're implemented by his company, and the assertiveness of the involved parties - in other words: politics.

What sticks out for me, though, is the politics of your H's work. ow isn't pulling her weight, but your H shares responsibility for clients with her. That position is untenable. IMO, his options are, basically:

1) Say nothing and find a new job - this gets him away from the anchor ow is

2) Say nothing and continue working with ow - this would be Hell for me as it is, and my bet is that it will get far worse, as ow comes to realize she can get away with her lack of productivity.

3) Come clean with his company. If he's ow's boss, he should lose his job, but he can reform himself - or just claim he's reformed himself - and get another job. OTOH, the company might say the A was extra-curricular and not their business, and then decide to fire ow because she's not doing her job. I'd consult a lawyer before choosing option 3, though....


fBH (me) - 65+, fWW (her) - 65+, Married 45+, together since 1965
DDay - 12/2010
Recovered, not yet fully R'ed
I share my own experience because it's the only experience I know, not because I'm a good model.

Posts: 9773 | Registered: Feb 2011 | From: Chicago area
Sad in AZ
♀ Member
Member # 24239
Default  Posted: 9:32 PM, July 4th (Thursday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

I wouldn't even concern myself about this

"political or recreational activities outside of work."

Because they already have a policy about this:

all inter-office relationships need to be disclosed to HR

So he's probably screwed. If he got an attorney, he might be able to argue that he did (finally) disclose the relationship to HR, provided that clause did not contain a time period.

Really, if he's thinking about taking this to HR now, he should consult an attorney.


I solemnly swear that I am up to no good.

Posts: 19809 | Registered: Jun 2009 | From: Upstate NY
Topic Posts: 11

Return to Forum: General Post Reply to this Topic
adultry
Go to :
madness  
© 2002 - 2014 SurvivingInfidelity.com. All Rights Reserved.