GUILTY IN THE COURT OF PEER OPINION

The Princess of Dorkness;

Guilty of:

• malicious mischief
• false allegations
• character assassination
• accepting pay for time not worked

Then This Sleepy Clueless Dude is the PRINCE OF DORKNESS

Nobody has put anything here for a long time.

Because all the contributors are dead, resigned, or let go?

Because McShane is retired 1000 miles away from the scene of the persecution?

His health is better for that, and his life expectancy probably is improved.

It was never about him, but to show malice, cowardice, hypocrisy, and double standards of the company, especially Huntley.

How could the company mishandle the around 30 contacts to the hot line?

Enemas of the People

Rose and Rick - Enemas of the people

That Marriage Was Not As Sound As They Thought

With what happened to that marriage and what she does not have now, Ms. Rose Nicastro ought to try to get back that platonic relationship with Mr. McShane, especially since he is retired and well off.

Living Well is the Best Revenge

He is living really well, so Bob is really well revenged, especially since the Princess of Dorkness' life fell apart. It is too funny that he is the only one that seems to be sympathetic to her. He was told about her divorce, and he was surprised because he said that he always thought that Frank and her got along so well. He doesn't see it as comeuppance like we do, and he acted relieved that she didn't lose her job to outsourcing. That is class.

Post by Frau Schadenfreude; Rose Nicastro Now?

BX2-G967 says she is

DIVORCED

email is rose.nicastro@intertek.com

INTERTEK EMPLOYEES CANNOT BE FIRED FOR POSTING CRITICISM HERE

Intertek employees who are members of this blog ought to check this link. The right to post critical comments here is protected by the government.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h36km4yy6CmflOcmFaYYz8CFGldQ?docId=496214c641714ab49c04f84719e0825b

Feds settle case of woman fired over Facebook site

(AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Employers should think twice before trying to restrict workers from talking about their jobs on Facebook or other social media.

That's the message the government sent on Monday as it settled a closely watched lawsuit against a Connecticut ambulance company that fired an employee after she went on Facebook to criticize her boss.
The National Labor Relations Board sued the company last year, arguing the worker's negative comments were protected speech under federal labor laws.

Chuck Cohen, a labor and employment lawyer and former NLRB member during the Clinton administration, said the case will have employers around the country re-examining their Internet policies
"It clearly has resonance because we know the NLRB's general counsel is going to take this position," Cohen said.

Millions of Americans use Facebook, Twitter and other social media. The board is looking at a growing number of complaints that explore the limits of corporate Internet policies. The board is an independent agency that works to prevent unfair labor practices in the private sector.

Image-conscious companies may be taken by surprise that the law protecting employees who want to discuss working conditions extends to social media sites, which can potentially be viewed by thousands or even millions of people.

A disgusting sorry business for a company that claims to be ethical

Why don't we just fire this girl? This website has given Intertek just a lot of bad press, even around Inspectorate and Amspec after McShane turned down a consulting job because he does not seem to want to work, and Google hits on it too when the right names are searched. What she did was responsible for more calls to the hotline than any other single matter (confirmed HQ leak), and it put the hotline in the position of answering with lies that just showed the hypocrisy of the hotline and the company in such matters. What she did got a lot of bad attention in an employee survey (confirmed HR leak).

If Huntley really does have Harvard credentials then he should know that employees think that one of the important things that a company can do is recognize and admit and correct bad decisions quickly, not just wait a long time and say yes we handled that one wrong and we will handle it better next time. Why does anyone care after this long? because we lost a technical resource that has not been replaced adequately and looks to be irreplaceable. There's not any goto person left for chemistry or quality issues.

It is true that some website authors have left the company and at least two and maybe three of the website authors have died, and one was probably the owner, meaning that the website can not be taken down, but people can keep on posting, and probably will.

There is a rumor that Huntley claimed an accomplishment for running McShane off. If its true we ought get rid of Huntley too.

Real conversation between Graham Lees and Diann Bruce-

Diann: Didn't yall get Bob's side of the story?
Graham: Of course not.

This is a disgusting sorry business for a company that claims to be ethical.

Night Crawling Abomination caused more calls to ethics hotline than any issue

The company grapevine says so, and calls to the hotline got lies or insulting meaningless response. Hotline does not care what employees think and so it does not have any credibility, especially if the company wants to save face and not admit mistakes.

Beard and Merkin were right then that one author was dead, but now two authors are dead.

They were right that he really doesn't seem to care what people think, especially HR, but as generously pensioned as he is from the chemical industry, he doesn't need to care.

Does Hr get annoyed when local employees and visitors including managers get together with him?

Beard and Merkin Remember a Wasted Resource

How many scientists does it take to equal one Robert? More than Intertek has.

There was a rumor that some people were advised not to communicate with him. If it's true, it has not worked and people talk to him and see him often.

He is not very free with his knowledge and experience any more, claiming that it is his property. He did regain his sense of humor in retirement though. He said about huntley and Almendarez and Lees that while he probably would try to save any one of them from a burning car, he damn sure wouldn't stop to help them change a flat tire. Too funny was when his wife said that she would not even do the burning car thing.

Huntley might can be forgiven for ignorance, since ignorance is not unethical, but he cannot be forgiven for malice and revenge, and Almendarez cannot be forgiven for malice and Lees cannot be forgiven for cowardice.

This blog is gaining authors, as it always does when some friends and employees and clients get together, like at the client cocktail party, and it shows that opinions about mishandling and bad company decisions have outlasted Robert and probably will outlast Huntley.

HR will want to blame Robert for doing this post, but it is known that he can't, and he doesn't trust anybody enough to put them up to it. After a 40 year career, he doesn't care what HR thinks anyway.

One of the Rose website members, the one that Robert claims to have had a knowing association with, has died.

They all need to know this history

There are new people in finance that need to be aware of what was done. Who knows how to let them know about this blog?

He's Doing Well in Retirement, but The Forces of Darkness Won and Ethics Lost

He seems to be doing so well in retirement that no wonder he doesn't seem to give a shit about how he got screwed.

Of course he never posted anything on Rose's website. He couldn't, and of course he had a knowing association with someone who did e mails and blogs, and it was that night in spring of 2007 that he accidently found out that he had a knowing association because somebody made a slip of the tongue. He was asked if he was going to do anything about it and he said not now, because he thought from mr. Huntley that things were getting better, but he wanted to see something positive from Mr. Huntley first.

It wasn't the win win strategy that he hoped, was it.

HR could probably find out who was there that night, becase they kept his appointment calendars. Petty.

The company ran off the best person in the whole company to take over New Orleans process chem lab and special projects, and he still has more class than any of those people that started all this with inflated allegations and over reaction. He was the one that could keep Mcculloh practical and realistic. See how the quality of the quality documentation has deterorated and how the system is getting unmanageable. McShane also could keep Donegan under control.

Who do we go to now with his experience to get good chemistry advice?

HR had to have revenge and punishment and had to save face after all the outrage over bad decision, and Huntley is so unpopular with his own group and Loghhead now that Huntley hopes this will be a distraction.

Forced to resign probably, and is this going to stop blogs? Eventually it will, but resentment by employee friends will stay forever, and as far as I am concerned, that rosenbrett website can grow forever as long as its true. Who thinks it will die now? As long as its true, what are they going to do to Bob, fire him?

Cause and Effect

Forced to resign. A technicality, and a very convenient one at that.
Who is next?
It is hoped the powers that be, aka" management", try not to take any actions which would be considered hostile.
There is still fuel for publicly chastising poor decision-making.

Double Standards

Everybody sees whats happened. There are always some things in HQ that Robert should go to, but he doesn't get asked to join. He only got a token invitation to that meeting. He won't be joining anything that gets him seen or heard or heard of. He can do chemistry and auditing and writing and consulting and keep being a support resource, and most everybody will depend on him but nobody will give credit openly or reward. Other people will take credit, though. Nobody thinks that all those business developers tell clients that he is the resource. Graham Lees does not care about him except to use his skills, and Huntley doesn't care about him at all except to keep him invisible. Huntley claims to be here for the executives. It's just easier for them to do nothing and let Robert twist in the wind than to do something, while men like Kaylor, Johnson, Deslatte and Wrezenski are protected or promoted and McCulloh gets a 17% raise. Rose isn't going to say oh, I was having fun, but me and my husband decided I shouldn't be, so we had to hurt somebody. Is Lees going to say oy, I let Bob get screwed so I wouldn't get anything on me. Huntley isn't going to say yeah, we handled this wrong, but we can't admit it, so we have to sacrifice the man to save face, and we'll keep it quiet and out of sight and maybe everybody will forget. Robert might be blamed for writing this himself, even when its impossible for him to blog, and if they don't blame him, they will say its a disgruntled employee with an ax to grind. Nobody is disgruntled, its just decent people that know how wrongly he was treated. The company stays in denial that their bad decision could stir up so much resentment. I wish Robert would unleash his lawyer. What the company did to him is the kind of injustice that the Houston Press writes about, and they would love to have this one.

Lying; An Acceptable Management Tool for Defending a Bad Decision

Most all accept that Robert sent that touching message to the guerilla supporters just because of how it was written, but his optimism or gullibility led to nowhere did it. Nobody believes that Robert deluded himself into thinking that good might happen, so he must have got the optimism by being lied to by somebody who thinks lying is an acceptable management tool for defending a bad company decision. That is hr, and there must have been hr involvement, because there was no way that Robert could have all those e mail addresses. He sent that message because he was told to, and hr gave him the addresses.

Same goes for that comment on Roses website from last August, it looks like something he wrote too. For all the good it did him, he should be embarrassed by it now, and that comment ought to be deleted.

Its time again to hold the night crawling abomination up to the light. It didn't fare very well in the employees survey last year did it.

If it means email messages all around and more placings on the website, lets get started.

Free to express ideas without fear of reprisal.

FACE Intel and Elie Wiesel

This is being posted with hopes Rick Huntley and his Superiors will read and do some serious thinking...

Former and current employees of Intel have formed their own support group due to similar and even worse circumstances than the unjust situation of Robert.
The good news is that some of the suffering Intel employees have brought lawsuits against Intel and have won. Fancy that, the small against the mighty...Food for thought...

Some information provided at the FACE Intel site include:
Regarding harassment - "Legal claim based on defamation entitles victim to recover against defamer for his or her emotional damages..."; "In addition, the victim will be entitled to sue for punitive or punishment damages..."; "Defamation can be proven on word alone..."; "Don't have to prove damages, they are assumed. The employer has to PROVE the statements were true..."; (Don't think this was handled properly, do you?) "Each repetition of a defamatory remark is a new injury..."; "Defamatory statement must also seem to state a fact, or that it is based on fact..."; (According to lunchtime witnesses, etc..., don't think Rose's allegations are true) "A defamatory statement in a personnel file defames you for as long as the statement is in the file..."; (Could be costly for Caleb Brett)

One link provided on the FACE Intel site takes one to the site of: CorpWatch.org, which is dedicated to holding corporations accountable for their actions...

As a compliment to all anonymous supporters of injustice in the workplace, here is a quote from Elie Wiesel:
"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest."

Regards to all.

Another One Bites The Dust

It is with no disrespect to a fine music group (Queen) that their song title is used for such a nasty situation.
The reference is to yet another year going by for Robert, and it is for him one year closer to retirement.
Robert believes those seeing truth and resolution to injustice have lost interest, and because life does get in the way of things this is understandable.
Angelus does hope those with opinion keep on keeping on...
In fact, a pint will be raised - hopefully not spilled on anyone or anything - but raised to salute everyone involved in this worthy pursuit.

Making a comparison: If this situation were a football, baseball or soccer game, and if the referee made a bad call it can either be viewed on a big screen for all to see, or kept somewhat private but given a fair review. Not always, but most of the time.
Would it not be interesting to see management's actions on a company-wide big screen?
Can't get away with much this way.

Regards to all, and thank you for continued support of a weary man who has not done wrong.

Angelus

Time passes, and nobody forgets

That stupid and criminal phone call came up again. It was at a lunch with the girls. Guess who brought it up.

Rose's old man called and threatened a man that never gave approval or agreement for web sites and emails, and anybody that’s clued in knows he is not part of them. The people involved are a lot closer than that.

Her old man doesn't need to be threatening someone who is so well regarded and respected and so much better connected than he is, especially when he has so much more to lose than RM does.

Rose and HR don't like the website and don't like the messages to Hq? There's going to be more, and always sent when its impossible for RM to do it, like when he's on a plane or with a lot of company people, or in the orchestra pit in front of a couple hundred people like now.

Rose sees the air travel, doesn't she, she can know when he is flying.

A dumb and juvenile telephone call. Macho studley, they probably think? More like mucho pudley.
RM really is a remarkably decent man. But Rose knows that as well as anybody

Beaner: Crawfish Boil = Information Exchange

A client and employee meeting is a fine place to exchange gossip, facts really, especially where there are so many friends who know and got offended by the action against Bob after Rose’s dramatics. Since HR is as much to blame, it’s no wonder that HR can’t find out who the friends are just by interviewing people. Nobody that HR interviewed supports the action. The only people that do are the few men and the lawyer of the other sex that have a bad decision to rationalize and justify and protect and defend, the people that let political interest deter them from doing what they knew to be morally right, and the people that would like everybody to think that is was ethical.

Angelus essay below is confusing some, but he or she must mean the money spent to block web sites and E mails. E mail blocking is easy to overcome, and I am going to with this.

The web master should remove Bob’s plea from August 22. Everybody thinks it was forced.

Cost-saving coupons not used in this spending spree?

Here are some questions for all concerned:

Let us say, hypothetically speaking of course, a company concerned with maintaining its supposedly pristine image, felt that a small but powerful anonymous group was trying to tarnish and undermine said image - surely not, but possibly due to some unethical judgment calls made by this particular company...We all know this unethical behavior would never happen in today's business world...

Just what do you suppose, still hypothetically thinking, this company would do when/if it felt threatened?
More importantly, how much do you think this company would spend and what actions do you think it would take in trying to eliminate the supposed/imagined threat by the annoying and anonymous?

Possibly, it would spend money to keep various and assorted concerned and powerful anonymous group members from communicating their concerns with other possibly unenlightened employees? (Now, how does the First Amendment fit into all of this?) That is a shame, really, because it would be good for all employed by this particular fictitious company to understand anticipated honesty, justice and equality may not happen in certain situations.

Now, if this hypothetical company spent money in trying to block communicating of truth by above-mentioned small group of annoying, image-tarnishing unknown entities, and possibly spent more money on other secretive actions, what amount would/could possibly be spent? One hundred dollars, one thousand dollars, or even more?
How would any possible actions taken by this company be notated in the record books?

Next, (and surely when a company both verbally and in printed form states sincere, honest employee support this would never happen,) would this hypothetical company resort to asking that certain vulnerable employees try to intervene in its behalf? Knowing the character of certain vulnerable employees, would the fictitious company consider making promises, knowing it would possibly never or has yet to bring into fruition any promises made?

Of course, these questions are presented as food for thought, hypothetically speaking...

Hope they brighten and enlighten your day! :)

HIS OPTIMISM WAS WRONG

Bob wrote touching and literate comment and email messages in his usual way. How did he get all those email addresses though?

They were compelling, but it's evident that nothing has changed, and his optimism was wrong.

The blog postings can resume, and some comments that were saved will get published now. Emails can start again. Some fair game email addresses will appear here later, but one thats always fair is rose.almendarez@intertek.com

Christmas Party Scuttlebut Sent To Rose

Christmas Party Scuttlebut Sent To Rose

Everybody knows that Robert or somebody pretending to be him tried to stop e mails and your internet web site that talks about what you did. If it was really him then it looks like he still tries to protect you, because nobody believes that he has anything to gain. If it was really him and he had something to gain, then folks might want to cooperate, but maybe it wasn't him, but somebody in Hr or IT, or Kim Stewart. Maybe it was you, because its known all about now that your old man made a really stupid criminal phone call. It's because of his mouth or your mouth that its known about. So many care about what happened that you only needed to tell one person to get it known about everywhere. Now the call is a subject for ridicule, and nobody wants to cooperate anymore.

When the owner of your web site starts accepting posts again this is going to get broadcast like news. Mr. Almendarez threats make him responsible now if anything happens to Robert, Hr ought to tell you that.

Just too funny is hr talking to people to find out who sends e mails and makes blogs. Nobody knows who all does it, but everybody knows who is responsible. You are, by trying to break the straightest arrow in the quiver, a complex personality that you can't understand, and now with that clumsy phone call it doesn't matter who it is that asked for e mails and blogs to be stopped, because now people are just offended more. The way to get people off of it is for you to do the right thing. Why wasn't it good enough when Robert agreed to what you wanted?

I know where he is right now and if you did you would know who can not very well be sending this.

You are supposed to tell Rick about this message, so be sure you tell him about that clumsy phone call too, because thats what this is about.

DOING WHAT HE WANTS FOR NOW

Robert is right, this blog is full of facts and they tell all about how the company mishandled a situation in a way that was so far away from right that now any good person can get nailed and destroyed by pc while the guilty get pampered and protected.

For those people who have tried to make postings lately, the postings have been removed and saved, and the website is not going to take any new postings for now, because it looks like that is what Robert asked for, but this website is not going away.

Any more opinions ought to be sent to rosewatcher@elitemail.org, and they will be saved.

Robert said that the company does provide a means to rail against perceived injustice. Sure, there still is http://www.compliance-helpline.com/intertek.jsp but that was proved to be a joke, and there is http://www.intertek-cb.com/generalsurvey.htm.

You have to wonder what happened to Robert, since it was well known that after he finally knew about this blog he didn’t ever agree to it but he never criticized it either until now. He seems to be counting on something good to happen if the entries stop. Lets all just wait for awhile and see what it is and just how good it is.

The company may just have the plan to get the blog stopped so they can say that since the blog is stopped everybody must have forgot about the matter, so nothing needs to be done. This website will not go away.

JUSTITIA to RM on 8/10/06

RM,

I read your blog comment, and you didn't follow the advice you got from Hotpig last year. This is not about you.

Why do you want it stopped?

So far you have been able to keep your distance from this blogsite, and you shouldn't have any reason to want it stopped.

Don't you see that both Almendarez couldn't let it go even when you and Rose agreed to end the relationship? Just to let it go would be admitting that there was a relationship, and she couldn't let that happen. Its no wonder she acted scared when she falsely accused you.

The wildest thing she ever did was be fond of you, and that conflicted with her own view of herself. She had to blame you, and everybody that knew was horrified when management was so unsavvy to do what they did. That's why that blog is not about you and it is not your cause.

Did somebody throw you a bone or show you a stick or a carrot. If it was a stick you can believe it but if it was a carrot, you need to be real suspicious. Why would they want to make anything easier for you now?

If it's true, maybe they know you have the upper hand. You always did, if you just would stop with the good soldier and gallant gentleman mind set and follow your legal rights.

I can add things to the website, but I won't add this, but I am not anybody who can change your comment to a post. Somebody that can change it will see it but if it doesn't happen pretty soon, try to send a message to rosenbob461@hotmail.com. I won't do it for you. I won't post any more for now, but I don't want the website to go away for now, the principle is too big, and it needs to stay in case something positive doesn't happen. I'm not going to have a problem with blogging on that site again if something good doesn't happen.

Good luck, and watch out for insincere bones or carrots. If the company cared as much about you as about saving face, they wouldn't ever have let this happen, or at least wouldn't let it go on so long.

REMOVED: !!!Rosenbob's Post, Converted from ROBERT'S COMMENT!!!

REMOVED, because it spoke of good things that might happen, which were based on promises from management, promises which were lies.

They Grind Exceeding Small

This is a message that was sent to Rose, and it is posted here by request of the sender.

to rose.almendarez@intertek.com

cc

subject Rose, he is SO NICE

memo He still treats everyone, women and men all, as if they were royalty. He makes everyone in the room comfortable just by speaking for a few moments.

No one can believe that he didn't behave as a gentleman and that he didn't treat you as a woman. No one believes that you saw some dark side of him that no one else saw.

It's only necessary to be a gentleman, and he is the model.He is different since I last saw him. He is reluctant to give hugs, and he recoils from them when offered.I sent you a message which mildly criticized your decision, and which gave you the benefit of believing that maybe you didn't intend all the consequences. Then I heard that your reaction was that I was a man trying to write like a woman.

I find it saddening that you thought only that, and considered my words to be of no significance.

If he had injured you, if this had been handled correctly, you would have only our support and understanding, and he would have the contempt. As it is, you have but made a tragic heroic victim of the man. Although it can't be said whether he bleeds for what you did or for what the company did, and though he tries not to show it, bleed he does.

Did he not agree to your wishes, and did you not promise never to do that, and were you not part of all that you had the company condemn him for?

I think this won't be forgotten, and though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small.

"Happy Aniversary Baby, Got You On My Mind..."

Please pause for a moment and reflect upon the memories of a dear friend now 2 years gone...

Thank you for doing that-it was nicely done.

It is now officially 2 years since Robert and Rose mutually agreed to end their relationship and keep everything between their (adult) selves.
One would think Rose now would have the courage to finally tell the truth? One would think management would realize they made grave errors in how they handled everything and make restitution?

The big, bad CB alpha males are probably patting themselves on the back now thinking the ill wind has finally blown out of Caleb Brett and employee morale is once again high.
Think again...

Rally on, small group of believers in truth and justice, for your cause is alive and well.

TO ROSE: HE WAS GOOD FOR YOU, AND WHAT YOU DID MADE IT LOOK LIKE HE WAS FAR TOO GOOD FOR YOU

With that message on February 28 some people got clued in by opening the link that we were told not to open, and I know how to add to your website now and I know what happened. I will see that you get this personally, but I will blog it first for all.

People know a lot more than you think, and a lot more than you want, and he has more support than he knows, and any apparent but hypocritical phoney support that you have comes only from the ones that you scared.

You had a first impression of the man, and so did I. That impression was right. Are you really that shallow to think that was the only way to get what you wanted? How about just telling him and letting it happen? Aren't people supposed to work things out?

Even the domineering husband submissive wife relation doesn't excuse malicious damage to another Caleb Brett team member.

He was good to you and he was good for you, but what you did makes it look like that he was far too good for you.

How do you think he must feel?

Visitors in the office and on the phone speak to you friendly but what do you think is going through their mind? This is the girl that backstabbed Bob, AND FOR WHAT?

What are you going to do about it?

It was cruel and senseless, and I do not think that this is going to be forgot especially, when we have Chris and Ed who do really harrassing things or disgusting and stupid things around clients and are treated so different.

brettgal@fmgirl.com is a real E mail address and you and Dr. Sleepy can answer if you want to. I know you read these, so I don't care if you answer or not.

Guadalupe Frisco's Post; MANAGEMENT OUGHT TO TAKE SOME OF ITS COWARDLY AND SELF SERVING CONCERN FOR ROSE AND GIVE IT TO THE REAL VICTIM

Everyone should see that Guy Falkes blog. It's true, and that writer is perceptive, but he or she isn't the only one. It is plain that an artificial glass ceiling has been put over Bob, and it's plain that he is being used but isn't allowed to be seen or heard about, and won't get appreciation for anything. It is also plain that management does a lot of wiggling and squirming to keep RA from seeing him-like she even had that right-and to not openly mention his name in head office at all.

Our management needs to tell Bob whats happening to him, and that he is expected to be a nobody forever. Why wouldn't they? He is my friend and a friend of many even if he has been thrown away by Graham. Bob should be told where he stands, and if he quits, that's what management wants, but it would make things worse.

I know management is in denial that the matter was mishandled. Management wants it thought that Bob brought something on himself, but he was punished for someone's malicious allegations, not facts.

People in head office are not supposed to answer E mail messages about this and are not supposed to recognise the existence of this Rosenbrett blog even though Graham tried to post a comment once, and it's evident that Graham and Rick pass messages like this to each other, probably to build a case against somebody. but somebody should tell Bob where he stands,and I wish I didn't have to be anonymous to say it. Management ought to take some of its cowardly and self serving concern for Rose and give it to the real victim.

Angelus' Post; INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS: FAIRNESS IS KEY TO SUCCESS

The following are direct quotes taken from the HR Matters Monthly Newsletter and might raise an eyebrow or two.

"Decisions by the Supreme Court provide compelling reasons for employers to perform investigations. A good investigation can protect your organization, while a bad one can become an employee relations fiasco. If you follow the proper process, your investigations should result in the "right" decisions."

"Performed systematically, investigations can prevent potential morale problems, resolve efficiency problems, and prevent legal and financial losses. In short, a good investigation can help you make sound employment decisions. However, poorly conducted internal investigations often result in low morale, negative public relations, and litigation. Therefore, you should have a well-defined process to specify the circumstances in which you will conduct investigations and to help you make confident, fair decisions."

"The consequences of not performing an adequate investigation can be severe. Many employees file lawsuits alleging discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination as the result of decisions based on inadequate investigations. In fact, both the complaining party and the accused wrongdoer may sue if an investigation was conducted in a shoddy manner or if a decision appears to be unfounded. Significantly, courts tend to punish employers that do not conduct thorough investigations. In addition, employee morale may suffer if employment decisions appear unfair or arbitrary because investigations are not thorough or objective. Most employees value fairness and will respect their employers' decisions if they are based on a structured investigative process."

"One way to keep the goals of an investigative process in focus is to visualize how your organization's procedures and decisions might be viewed in an outside forum, such as a local newspaper or court. You should be confident that your investigative process and decision would be considered fair if held up to public scrutiny."

"As a general rule, you should talk to any person who may have information that would either prove or disprove that the alleged conduct occurred."

"However, there may be times when the evidence is inconclusive and you cannot reach a determination. In these cases, you should not take action against either party. Placing blame where the truth cannot be determined may result in claims of wrongrul discharge, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, or retaliation."

Yes, indeed, the truth is out there!

Guy Fawkes' Post; IS IT ETHICAL TO WITHHOLD THE TRUTH? IS THAT BETTER THAN LYING?

Thanks to that mass e mail on 2-28, now I understand some things, and thanks to someone for getting me in this blog.

Sonnschein’s words on 9-11-05 tell a complete story, and there is good perception from 77Morpheus about the way some real criminals were treated and the worthlessness of company loyalty and the uselessness of the hotline when the company makes a bad decision and has to protect it.

I have some perception too and this is what I see happening, and its real obvious and it violates all ethical handling of a matter and a person by the company.

He won't be told, but Bob is gradually being removed from any jobs of importance and visibility, but still will have the grunt jobs of auditing and writing and invisible solving problems. It would be "inconvevient" for the company to have a convict in a visible position even though it was a false conviction. Is it ethical to withhold the truth? Is that better than lying?

He won't be told, but he will not be allowed to achieve anything because he is held to a different standard. Anything that would be recognized as an achievement in anybody else will be declared unimportant or kept invisible if achieved by him. It would be "uncomfortable" for the company to let a convicted criminal have that kind of visibility even if wrongly convicted. He will be just a resource to be exploited, but the only recognition and appreciation will come from his peers, and they are discouraged from doing it openly. He is the best we have when it comes to knowing things, but not when it comes to recognition except by his peers. Is it ethical to withhold the truth? Is that better than lying?

He won't be told, but he will not go to hq again. You know that management trick, to put a stain on somebody and then keep them out of sight because they are stained. To let him go to hq would require somebody to do something, but to keep him away nobody has to do anything. It is easier to do nothing than something, and doing nothing allows the company to stay in denial and rationalize that he brought something on himself. The company can't have Rose claim that she is "uncomfortable." In fact, doesn't management in head office try to avoid saying his name openly?. Is it ethical to withhold the truth? Is that better than lying?

Graham never stood up for anybody and now wants to put as much distance from Bob as possible. They would like nothing as much as to have Bob resign.

His bitterness does not show and that's good because he would be slammed for a bad attitude. You know that management trick, cause a person to have a bad attitude and then criticise them for having it.

His melancholy shows and sooner or later the the company can call that a bad attitude too. Is it ethical to damage somebody and then blame them for looking damaged?

They tell him to let it go and put it behind him, but you can not put something behind you today when you have to wake up to it tomorrow can you.

The company answer to another compliance report about this is scary

“The matters referred to in the callers allegation are closed. The Company can make no further comment on these issues without disclosing information that is confidential.”

You know how to make all this go away

Its not by doing anything worse to Bob its by reopening the matter and making the right decision. Doing something worse to Bob would make it all worse.

Angelus' Post; LET THERE BE LIGHT

I do hope the blog-members do not decide to back-shelve this issue or find themselves too occupied in their day-to-day lives to let it die.
One never knows whom the next innocent victim will be.....Could be any one of you at some time in the future. Hopefully, the company learned a valuable lesson from their stupidity and would not dare to make the same mistake again. Hopefully, none of you will find yourselves in this same position.
Should the heinous actions again occur, knowing there is support does make a difference. Makes facing each day a little more tolerable.

Robert does know who his friends are and who his enemies are, but still has no clue who has publicly voiced outrage in his defense. He does not want to know.

Perhaps some day, someone will be brave enough or feel secure enough to drop him a note and put a name to their pseudonym. It takes a strong person to stand up for what is right, even if it is done quietly.

Robert has aged many years in the last year, but this can be reversed.

Please do not let your respect for him be overshadowed, but continue to give light and voice to principle and what is right.
It is a very lonely place to be where there are burdens but nobody to help carry them.

Angelus' Post; HARASSMENT, DEFINITION OF

a) To irritate or torment persistently b) To wear out; exhaust c) To impede and exhaust an enemy by repeated attacks or raids d) Unwelcome behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarasses e) Threatening behavior outside the norms created by society.

Did Intertek Caleb Brett have a clear anti-harassment definition/policy in place when it took the, "appropriate" action against Robert?
Did Intertek Caleb Brett check to see if there was basis to substantiate Rose's harassment claim against Robert and confirm it was made without deliberate malice?

According to Intertek Compliance Code, which is available on the internet for all to see, complaints of violations of the Code should be reported to either a) VP of Compliance or Business Stream Compliance Officer b) employee's superior or member of senior management or internal auditor who shall, in turn, inform the Vice President of Compliance.
According to Investigations & Sanctions, in this same Code, there should be documented procedure for handling of investigations and sanctions, etc.......

There are numerous policies in the education sector having specific definition of and remedy for harassment. Duke University indicates the burden of proof is on the complainant, and harassment complaints must be submitted in writing, including names, dates and details of alleged misconduct defined as harassment. There must be a preponderance of evidence to substantiate the action/s taken.
There may be no negative inference/action taken against the accused if the accused does not take action against allegations.

Written details submitted against Robert should have been given to him in order for him to decide as to whether or not to pursue action against allegations and to substantiate innocence of harassment.


If it appears Intertek Caleb Brett did not act appropriately for both Rose and Robert and instead sought a quick and easy course of action without due investigation to substantiate Rose's false allegations, they are potentially in a world of hurt.
If it appears Intertek Caleb Brett did not follow its own publicly published Compliance Code, the employees should take a "Zero Tolerance Policy" stance and legally file a complaint with the EEOC and any other employment attorney they could find. They should have all managers also sign the very same documents covering ethics, zero tolerance and compliance which employees must sign.

If one should so consider, the action taken against Robert could fall under the category of unethical conduct which breaches portion of #7 in Intertek's Code of Ethics.

Next up: Perjury, Definition of


To be continued..........

Patticake's Post; ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM JANET DOE

Dear Janet Doe,

So many questions to so many places, and not all the questions can be answered.

Bob doesn't know who we are for good reason. We don't know who we all are either. Contributors have come and gone. This blog is leaderless. We won't ever be public because those who work for the company have jobs to worry about.

More than the person, we support principle. The man got screwed by the company and got screwed by the girl who seems now to be Jekyll and Hyde. Promised never to do that then did it. We would support any person who got it like that.

Bob didn't know about Rosenbrett for a long time, but it seems he knows now.

At his age he might go for for the lawyer, but it would be against Rose for slander or defamation, not his company.

In this court of public opinion, we would like to see Rose and Huntley convicted. We can only hope that Mr. Super scientist and Super gentleman can work till an honorable retirement.

Unfortunately, this blog probably won't do much good in the long range. It's impossible to perpetuate it. We have gained members and we have lost members. Momentum is OK for now, but no one knows for how long. We will try. Your offer of your own involvement is appreciated.

We don't think any bloggers were interviewed in the matter, and we don't believe there was a written report from Rose. We believe the HR VP handled it all incompetently.

Rose's demeanor seems to be one of no remorse and like nothing ever happened. No one who saw them can understand that callousness. It's possible that someone has sent anonymous message to Rose suggesting recant, but I think it's not known for sure. It may not matter if she would or not, because even if she would, the whole matter probably is out of her control now. HR has it, and they seem to be pleased with what they have done.

You are surely an outsider. No matter. We think there are other outsiders. If you haven't been invited to join, you probably will be, and you are welcome to do so and post.

You must be a scientist or a musician or both.

You could have contacted Gault - you could have contacted anyone. There is no membership hierarchy or organization.

Welcome, if you stay.

Justitia's Post; THIS IS INSULTING TO ALL OF US WHO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. WHY IS THE COMPANY SO AFRAID OF LETTING THE TRUTH OUT?

It was a reliable source that leaked that the company suggested that Robert should seek counseling to handle the effects of what was caused to him.

The company probably thinks that they are making a compassionate and kind and noble gesture.

The Dilbert principle is alive and well in our company.

To set up arbitrary conditions causing damage to a person and then offer to help treat the effects, when the right thing to do is to remove the cause, is insulting.

That is like hanging a big anchor on someone and then offering to help them learn to swim with it, when the right thing is to remove the anchor.

Almost as insulting is making us not talk about it. Is that to make it appear that everything is right or that what happened is right, or that nothing happened?

Just as insulting is setting somebody to watch Bob and report if he talks. That's more like Machiavelli than Dilbert.

Why is the company so afraid of letting the truth out? Is it just company ego? The company can't admit mistakes? You know an error isn't a mistake unless you don't correct it, so it looks like the company wants to make a mistake in the eyes of its employees.

There would be much less backlash if the company had done the right thing first.

Shannon Kiddo's Post, Converted from Anonymous Comment

This is a great site! Almost everybody around the company already knows what happened, but this lays it out for ALL to see.

It needs some graphic in that empty space next to the members names.

A good one would be a tall redheaded girl stabbing a short bald guy in the back. The girl would have a forked tongue and maybe two faces. Standing by could be a couple vps trampling on justice and the ethics policy.

Anybody know how to do it?

Sonnschein's Post; THANKS ANONYMOUS OF 1.7.06. SOME OF YOUR COMMENT IS WORTHY, BUT SOME OF IT IS NOT, AND IT CAN'T STAY

Your comment has been removed.

If you want to be part of this blog, and if you can stay with the issue, you can join. Send a working Email address to

nostroma@fastmail.fm

To prove that you are the same person that made the deleted comment, you need to include that unappropriate last sentence of your comment.

If you do not want to post yourself you can still send to the Email address and someone will do it for you, or you can keep commenting and any worthwhile comments might be changed to postings. There are some people that want to do it like that.

7HN-R37's Post; ROSE, HOW MUCH DAMAGE DID YOU INTEND?

Why couldn't you just tell him what you wanted and then just let it happen? You don't want to see him again, that could be your right, but you don't have a right to everything you caused.

You deprived more people than you know. With his life experiences, he would have made a valuable adult male friend for Andy, with the things happening with Andy now, and you know what I mean.

Did you really have to deprive all of us?

Cruel? Selfish? Egotistical? Controlling husband? All?

Guadalupe Frisco's Post, Converted from Anonymous Comment; I HEARD THAT HIS FAREWELL MESSAGE TO HER WOULD HAVE MELTED THE HEART OF A STATUE

Yes, some of us heard the same thing, and we heard that it was in that message that he agreed unconditionally to do what she wanted, and we heard that THEN she went and betrayed him and the message was used against him, even though he was responding to HER message.

Goody's Post, Converted from Anonymous Comment; SHE KILLED IT FOR ALL OF US

The perception on the street is we will not have another employee christmas party or picnic, and perception is reality, right. This is some of that unholy agreement where somebody thinks that Bob and Rose can’t be around each other, and you could not invite one but not the other. Everybody suffers. How selfish on her part and clueless of Rick to not agree to patching things. Bob always went to the get togethers, but everybody knows that he missed one just out of sensitivity to her wants, and then she slammed him anyway and it came to all this. The girl needs to grow up. She never got harassed by him, and the company has let this uncalled for disciplinary CRAP go on long enough.

Nostroma's Post; THANK YOU FOR YOUR POST, ANGELUS, BUT THAT ONE COULD NOT STAY AS IT WAS

Your contributions are appreciated, but that deleted one may have resulted from over-analysis of the matter.

It is possible that it went down as you theorize, but in fairness to the company it's generally believed that it wasn't as sinister as you suppose.

It was bad enough though, because the motive was FEAR, or more likely COWARDICE. Rose's allegations scared management witless.

Rose morphed into Mrs. Hyde, and changed her mind about her MUTUALLY AGREEABLE relationship with Robert, and of course went to HR or elsewhere with selective and inflated stories, including complaints that her husband – CONTROLLING husband we know - did not like her association with a male member of Intertek, but we don't think the company was just waiting for this chance to ambush. The company reacted to protect itself from embarassment, and the reaction was both cowardly and unethical. The company will call it a business decision, which demonstrates that “business ethics” is an oxymoron.

Rose can hold this over the company for who knows how long. In fact, it is believed that there is some unholy agreement between Rose and the company that keeps Robert buried to keep Rose quiet.

Business ethics.

True Robert declined a job change a couple of years ago for reasons that seemed good to him, but we think that it was truly a choice that he was offered and that management accepted it without problem.

The word always used now – a word that you used, and the proper word - is SACRIFICE, and that is just what it was. Management and the paid lawyer knew that Rose could embarrass the company with some kind of claim, even though she never could win anything in a suit. The company has reason to fear any scrutiny by authority, which is what a suit would lead to. It was easier to sacrifice the individual than to face the matter ethically.

Business ethics.

Some of your post needs to stay –

“It is right and admirable for blog members to post unfairness, and one would assume Robert is humbled knowing his situation has support.”

“Has anyone stopped to think why the company chose to wrongly banish Robert when other people who truly have committed errors are instead promoted?”

Business ethics.