All’s fair in love and work

It’s quite common for people who love each other to experience frustration and anger at times, but when it happened to Shannon it was more than a domestic issue.

The receptionist at an office block faced disciplinary action for making ‘a threat to kill’ her husband.

She had spoken to her spouse in a phone call while on a cigarette break and made the throwaway comment to a colleague as she was walking back to the reception desk.

Shannon’s frustration stemmed from delayed renovations to the family home, which were going to be delayed further, because her husband had in her words ‘changed his mind yet again.’

She admitted she did say ‘I will kill that man one day’, but was adamant that it was said in frustration, and she did  not mean it.

Unbeknown to Shannon, who had worked for her employer for five years, a passing office worker heard the comment, and reported it to her bosses.

Shannon was summoned to her supervisor’s office the following day, asked about what she said and explained the comment she made.

The supervisor advised Shannon making a threat to kill someone was a serious matter and she had brought the company into disrepute. She was suspended from work.

Shannon was shocked, insisted she did not mean it, explained the prolonged home renovation was causing stress and it was said out of frustration.

She was understandably distraught. It happened just weeks after Shannon’s employer had agreed to her flexible working request, which she felt would give her the perfect work-life balance.

The employer conducted a disciplinary investigation and invited Shannon to a fact-finding meeting. She admitted making the comment and fully explained why.

She did hope her employer would finally accept she did not mean what she said, and would understand why she said it.

That did appear to be the case because the allegation about making a threat to kill was dropped – but it was not the end of the matter.

Shannon was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing to face an allegation of bringing her employer into disrepute.

Later the same day Shannon contacted our Employee Support Centre and spoke to one of our representatives.

He was keen to understand what evidence the employer was relying upon to support it was brought into disrepute, as Shannon had not been provided with any.

So our representative wrote to the employer to request the evidence to support the allegation.

In response the employer provided what were said to be the supervisor’s notes of a conversation with the office worker who reported the matter.

The notes showed the office worker said they knew Shannon did not mean what she said and just thought someone should have a word with her.

Our representative argued the notes could not reasonably be considered evidence to support that Shannon had brought the employer into disrepute, which was stated as a fact in the allegation, rather than it had the potential to do so.

He made it clear that he understood the concern, but he felt there had been an overreaction to what Shannon said.

Our representative explained the comment was made in a moment of frustration and was not meant literally. He pointed out it was a figure of speech, often used to express irritation or anger with a loved one with no real intent behind it.

He told the hearing that Shannon was remorseful, wished to apologise, acknowledged the comment was inappropriate in that setting, and had taken appropriate learning from it which should provide an assurance she would not do it or similar again.

It was explained by our representative that the comment was completely out of character, supported by Shannon’s exemplary work record and performance, and a result of significant stress she was under at that time, which can make people say things they do not mean.

Shannon was later cleared of the allegation