Office gossip can land you in the compost heap

I receive not a few enquiries from employers and employees asking what can be done about office gossip – especially the malicious kind. The problem with this sort of thing is that it is usually done with malicious intent – to try and get somebody into trouble with the employer, to bad-mouth somebody, or even in an attempt to "feather one's own nest." Jealousy plays a big part too, and so does "blowing one's own trumpet", or trying to raise one's own status in the eyes of colleagues. But it usually ends in trouble.

In Rautenbach / Relyant Retail (Pty) Ltd [2005] 8 BALR 890 (CCMA) a number of the employers managers met socially at a country resort. One of the managers made comments to his colleagues that he had sexual intercourse with one of the female managers while she was in one of the hotel rooms recovering from a drinking bout. He was charged with sexually harassing the complainant (the female manager) and dismissed. The complainant could not remember what had happened in the room.

The dismissed manager denied that he had molested the complainant, and denied that he had made any remarks suggesting that he had sexual intercourse with her. The Commissioner concluded that, because certain rumors had been circulating, it was probable that something untoward had been said at the bar when the dismissed employee returned from the room in which the complainant had been sleeping. He found further that these rumors had emanated from a statement made by the dismissed employee, and that statement suggested that he had sexual intercourse with the female manager in her hotel room.

He found that, on the balance of probability, it was not probable that he did have sexual intercourse. The Code of Good Practice on Sexual Harassment provides that verbal forms of sexual harassment must take place in the presence of the complainant – in this instance, the complainant was asleep in her bedroom when the alleged verbal sexual harassment occurred.

However, the Commissioner still found it to constitute misconduct, because it impinged on the complainant's reputation and good name. The fact that the dismissed employee made this statement in the bar while under the influence of alcohol, and the fact that he had apologised  to the female manager, were taken into consideration by the Commissioner. However, despite the above, the Commissioner found the conduct of the dismissed manager to be of such a serious nature that dismissal was justified.

So there you have it – a remark made by a person who was under the influence of liquor – a remark made in the context of office gossip – no doubt with the intention of raising himself in status in the eyes of his colleagues – cost him his job.

Was it all worth it ?

You decide.

Employers should have a proper and specific policy in place to prohibit this type of thing – stipulating that disciplinary action will be taken which may lead to the dismissal of the guilty party.

For further information, contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it