Patticake's Post; SHE NEVER DISCOURAGED, AND SHE DID ENABLE

I and some others phoned the hotline about this and got what sounded like management rationalization of a bad decision. I don't expect anything different now, but now we have the web so I reported again, and my report was dissed. It looks like the company would rather defend and rationalize a bad decision than to admit it and correct it. I knew what was going on for a long time, but no one asked me. Whether she encouraged is debatable, but she didn't discourage, and she did enable. Koshany and Darts were not the ones to ask anything to. I told my concerns to my boss then, and I was told that I could call the hotline. Why do her theatrical accusations to Jay get more credibility than Bob's history and known character. He can be an intellectual charmer, but no one believes that he would do anything harassing to a girl. Why is there a gag order. He wasn't talking except to defend Rose and to change the subject, but now its known that he cant talk. This is probably the company forcing him to not talk about it so that the company can claim that he must be ok because he's not talking about it. Either nobody should have been disciplined, or the girl should have been disciplined, or his punishment should be annulled.

Sandy Grimalkin's Post; SHE HAD NO RIGHT TO THIS

I wanted to do this for a long time, now we have the web means. there are two of us, and if two reports will have more credibility, we will make another report. We are doing this by invitation because that's what Graham’s email was, and we have to be anonymous because we heard that this matter was off limits for discusion. Thats why I haven't talked to anyone else. We strongly resent what was done to Bob by the company at the inducement of Rose. There was no legal requirement for the company to act that way for baseless allegations. The company had choices and should not have let her be in charge of what was done to him She had no right to this. Her actions were sleazy and the company actions were cowardly, and we are among many who want to see things corrected. not just made to go away but corrected.

Solomonder's Post; THAT DECISION SHOULD BE REVERSED. THE ONLY LOSER WOULD BE THE WOMAN'S EGO, BUT SHE IS THE ONE THAT DID WRONG

I saw the message explaining how to use the web for reporting. I appreciate that resource but that's not what this is about. It's about something that needed to be raised for a long time but wouldn't have without this way of reportuing. Is the web compliance reporting really a way to get issues heard and investigated or will the company just make an exception and ignore this one because HR bagged a big one?

The people make the company and for management to handle the people like it did damages the company because the wrong person was punished, and it was a motivated, productive work ethical employee.
I am not educated in the ways of the law but I understand common sense, decency and ethics and this is all those both business and personal. I don't see anything that the man did wrong but I see a lot that the woman and the company did wrong.

This can not be swept under the rug because it's too late for that, but the decision can be reversed and all it takes is for the company to look into it objectively. The only loser might be the woman's ego, but she is the one that did wrong in the first place.

7HN-R37's Post; SHE SAID THAT THE FLOWER CAME FROM HER BOYFRIEND

The head office grapevine says that he was called a stalker. That's ridiculous and offensive to those that know him and know about the relationship between him and Rose. she gave him her unlisted phone number. Did he use it? She told him which week night she goes to Walmart. Did he use that? He knows where the kids go to school. Does he do something with that? She said that a rose came from her boy friend. How is this known? It was learned from her. She would talk when she was enjoying the attention from him, and it looks like she didn't say the same things back then that she said later on when she said something selective things. The people making the decisions here don't seem to care about facts, and sure know less than most people, because they did not interview anybody who knew anything except maybe Christie.
A company that cares would try to arrive at a right decision instead of just a pc or bs or cs one and I figured that my company had more class than this. Is it true that even though the relationship was over punishment was issued but was called correction? That is sickening to someone who trusts the company to do right and to practice and support the ethics advertised. Come on, compliance people, handle this for what it was. The way it got handled was the worst of all choices, and the most inappropriate discipline ever seen, and nobody can speak openly because it's uncomfortable for management, and you wont hear talking from Bob because thanks to this he is a defeated and demoralized man with the personality of a zombie. Thanks to this e mail method of reporting we can make a confidential good faith report and I will read the response. Please don't say that the right thing was done, or that the company had no choice but to punish him, or that nothing can be done to right it. Most employees are smarter than to believe that.

Robert Androse's Post; THE COMPANY KNOWS IT DID WRONG, BUT WOULD PREFER A COVER-UP TO ADMITTING AND CORRECTING A BAD DECISION

I was encouraged by the compliance officer to submit this report in good faith, and it's about the company's and Rose's actions against Bob. He was treated wrongly for accusations without all the facts and the company seems more willing to cover up and defend the matter instead of looking into it and making it right. I and others have a concern that the company knows it did wrong but won't change anything. This is a concern when the company claims to be ethical and to support the right thing. The company really needs to follow up more, and there isn't any concern about re opening a can of worms because it never got closed. Rose seems to have something to hold over the company and that should not happen. It looks like a matter of getting the company to make a bad decision or face an embarrassing nuisance. Bob did nothing wrong and he has some support with those who know about it. He should have his day, and the ethical company owes that to him and to all of us who know what happened.

Robert Androse's Post; IT WAS AN ACT OF MALICE THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED LIKE ONE

Management needs to conduct a real and serious and objective investigation into the malicious and damaging report made by Rose. It was character assassination on Robert at no advantage to herself. If not outright lies, it was made in exaggerated and selective stories intended to show him as some kind of threat for reasons that she only knows. We all know what their friendship was all about, but the management with authority only knows her story. Maybe she was embarrassed because she USED to go for lunch or accept a flower or send e mails, but the timeline will prove that the relationship was over by written and accepted apology before she reported. One of two persons in a mutual consent relationship cant be allowed to bring down the other person after the relationship was mutually ended amicably just because she changed her mind or because the husband got pissed. Robert's character has been slandered, his career has been damaged, and his personality has been damaged and all this has been validated by the company just by accepting and reacting to what she said without a full investigation. In this new way of reporting we are trying to submit a good faith complaint, but its very hard not to tell the girl herself. Her report led to damage to one but to no good for anybody except herself maybe but she could have got the same thing by telling him. It doesn't matter how it was disguised, it was an act of malice and ought to be handled like one. Thank you.

Guadalupe Frisco's Post; THE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE SENT HER PACKING

I was told that a fool only would make a report this way, but I trust it more than the 1-800 number, so I want to use the web enabled hotline to state my disgust about how Bob was treated by Rose and by the company. She enjoyed his company for a long time. When a friendship is over by agreement you don't go whine to management that you were harassed and get the man punished, and the company ought not punish for contrived allegations. For sure she must have wanted him gone, but no one believes that she should have that right not to have to see a person that she used to like just because she doesn't any more. I believe the company made a bad decision and violated it's own compliance policy by not stomping on her allegations and sending her packing, or at least straightening it all out between them. The older man got the shaft because it looked good and safe to give it to him, and it should be made right. Maybe there was poor judgement all around, but she was the troublemaker and he was the one punished. He didn't do anything worse than she did. He is not known for being mean or deceitful, but her accusations were both. I have heard how she appeared when she made accusation, and that was deceitful. It seems like the company could have been fair instead of trying to look good and legal. There was harassment like a pig flies.