Christian Horner under Investigation

[mendis]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/chri ... f1-launch/

HORNER INVESTIGATION UNLIKELY TO CONCLUDE BEFORE RED BULL LAUNCH

[organic]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/chri ... f1-launch/

HORNER INVESTIGATION UNLIKELY TO CONCLUDE BEFORE RED BULL LAUNCH

Will he be at the launch?

[mendis]

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/chri ... f1-launch/

HORNER INVESTIGATION UNLIKELY TO CONCLUDE BEFORE RED BULL LAUNCH

Will he be at the launch?

I guess he would. If he has stood his ground and the investigation is ongoing means, nobody can issue an order to stop him from being there. As this is Red Bull racing event, not Red Bull GmbH, everything will be managed by people under him. So anyone from media attending might strictly be informed to keep questions on car, not on Horner.

Anyone know if he is going to office in Milton Keynes? If he is, then he would be there for the event.

[Redragon]

Horner verdict not due until next week apparently

https://www.espn.in/f1/story/_/id/39490 ... -next-week

I wouldn't be surprised if this controversy dies down, without any official statement about the closure as there was none about it's start either. Someone from either Red Bull majority stake holders or someone with good influence might step in to clean up the mess and bring about a settlement.

If this was serious matter, Horner would be out by now taking responsibility for an offence that's unacceptable in any professional or legal framework. If that hasn't happened means it's not a clear cut case and no ground for termination. This was leaked to media to embarass and see if that can work. Just my hunch.

Totally agree also wasn’t a hearing just a meeting to listen his side of the story. If it was so offensive as first rumours would have been out by now.

[f1jcw]

If this was serious matter, Horner would be out by now taking responsibility for an offence that's unacceptable in any professional or legal framework.

It doesn't work like that, we had a alcoholic that came into work, but he didn't get sacked right away, they had to tred carefully, especially as they wanted to be supportive, but even without that you have to be careful not to open yourself up to being sued.

[MTL79]

What is controlling behaviour?
According to the Home Office’s official statutory guidance framework, controlling or coercive behaviour is a “intentional pattern of conduct” in which perpetrators will “use various means to hurt, humiliate, intimidate, exploit, isolate and dominate their victims.”

There are many different behaviours which fall under this conduct, including: physical and sexual violence/abuse, violent behaviour, emotional or psychological abuse, controlling behaviours, restrictive behaviours and threatening behaviours.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... d-hearing/

I undertand you're asking a rhetorical question and it very much depends on the laws enacted in each country, however if you're employee is not performing properly, you need to speak to them about what they did wrong in a level-headed fashion. Then if errors occur again, you need to document this in their file and then you can dismiss them. In general, yelling at people can be considered harrassment, so that's a no.

This is what I've learned in my managerial roles to date. It may or may not apply here for many reasons.

[mendis]

If this was serious matter, Horner would be out by now taking responsibility for an offence that's unacceptable in any professional or legal framework.

It doesn't work like that, we had a alcoholic that came into work, but he didn't get sacked right away, they had to tred carefully, especially as they wanted to be supportive, but even without that you have to be careful not to open yourself up to being sued.

That's precisely the point! If the offence is not clear enough, that leaves chance for suing. If the offence is clear as day and goes against the labour, compliance and company policies, there would be no room for bargain, especially when the company wants to fire you. Unlike an alcoholic person that would undermine his offence, Horner is the CEO of Red Bull racing and I presume, anyone in corporate management would be fully aware of what is an unacceptable offence.

[f1jcw]

Unlike an alcoholic person that would undermine his offence, Horner is the CEO of Red Bull racing and I presume, anyone in corporate management would be fully aware of what is an unacceptable offence.

Thats why they have to be double careful, especially if he's disputing it. Need to see if he is attending events or not.

[MTL79]

My partner is a lawyer, she is anal about attention to detail which is how she does the best job for her clients and why she is so successful but she has two useless secretaries who need reminding on a daily basis to do the job they are paid to do. It drives her to distraction but she won't let them get away with sloppiness and laziness. When does this become controlling or coercive behaviour and simply an employee not up to the job?

Depends what she is doing or saying.

When I used to manage (I don't anymore because I got tired of office politics), if an employee wasn't up to snuff you went to HR. You outlined the employees short cummings and then You, HR, and the employee had a meeting. In the meeting it would be made very clear to the employee what was expected of them and what they needed to do to keep their job. They would be given a few weeks to get them selves in line and if they didn't they would be let go.

Things that are not ok that I've personally seen or heard about.

• if you don't get this done I'm going to {some form of physical assault}
• intentionally dressing down an employee Infront of their peers to embarrass them or intimidate the peers.
• threats about ruining their careers in some way or ensuring the never work in the industry again etc
• requiring them to perform demeaning tasks to keep their job
• various forms of verbally demeaning them

Basically narcissistic, psychopathic, and Sociopathic type behaviors are not ok. If an employee isn't up to snuff, get rid of them, do just keep them around and figuratively beat on them.

Yes precisely. You have a duty as a manager to inform HR and your supervisors and then to take actions to rectify the problem. Thereafter, with enough documented evidence, you can fire the employee. Yelling at someone will be construed as haressment.

In my younger days, being yelled at was common, but not any longer.

[chrisc90]

[f1jcw]

8 hours is a long time to interview, wonder what they had to go over in that time.

Seen a post from a random person that says
"More from Austria on #ChristianHorner. The inappropriate behaviour is said to have been at the ski world cup event at Kitzbuehel. There's a dossier of incriminating material at RB HQ. Horner had plotted to set up a holding company for all RB motorsport with himself in charge"

Was Horner even at Kitzbuehel?
Can't see anything to collaborate it, but in the off chance it isn't BS I'll post.

[dans79]

In my younger days, being yelled at was common, but not any longer.

It depends on the environment, it's fine to yell in a lot of places factories, outdoor work environments, basically any place that's is loud or people might be separated by a none trivial distance. However yelling derogatory or demeaning comments isn't acceptable!

[Shakeman]

My partner is a lawyer, she is anal about attention to detail which is how she does the best job for her clients and why she is so successful but she has two useless secretaries who need reminding on a daily basis to do the job they are paid to do. It drives her to distraction but she won't let them get away with sloppiness and laziness. When does this become controlling or coercive behaviour and simply an employee not up to the job?

Depends what she is doing or saying.

When I used to manage (I don't anymore because I got tired of office politics), if an employee wasn't up to snuff you went to HR. You outlined the employees short cummings and then You, HR, and the employee had a meeting. In the meeting it would be made very clear to the employee what was expected of them and what they needed to do to keep their job. They would be given a few weeks to get them selves in line and if they didn't they would be let go.

Things that are not ok that I've personally seen or heard about.

• if you don't get this done I'm going to {some form of physical assault}
• intentionally dressing down an employee Infront of their peers to embarrass them or intimidate the peers.
• threats about ruining their careers in some way or ensuring the never work in the industry again etc
• requiring them to perform demeaning tasks to keep their job
• various forms of verbally demeaning them

Basically narcissistic, psychopathic, and Sociopathic type behaviors are not ok. If an employee isn't up to snuff, get rid of them, do just keep them around and figuratively beat on them.

Yes precisely. You have a duty as a manager to inform HR and your supervisors and then to take actions to rectify the problem. Thereafter, with enough documented evidence, you can fire the employee. Yelling at someone will be construed as haressment.

In my younger days, being yelled at was common, but not any longer.

I think I should point out my partner doesn't yell at her staff she doesn't even raise her voice at all which is more than I could manage.

The point I was making in the post was that depending on perspective the secretaries might think they've got a difficult boss and think they're being hard done by. Which is not the case at all. This could be the situation at RB, a demanding boss who has greater attention to detail than the employee and a mismatch of expectations from both sides.

I did work for a sociopath once, it wasn't nice, he took his frustrations of the job out on the rest of us. We'd write our reports and he'd go through with red pen changing perfectly good English into his English which we had to waste time changing. It didn't matter if you copied the language of previous reports with his English he'd just change 'The cat on the mat' to 'The woven floor covering was sat on by the feline mammalian'. You could not win and then you'd get bollocked for spending a day too long writing the report. I so glad I'm out of science and that particular hellhole.

[dans79]

Was Horner even at Kitzbuehel?

I don't know about this year, but he has in the past.

If the alleged event happened at Hahnenkamm cooperate responded pretty quickly, as the event only happened 2 weeks ago.

[Vanja #66]

Sky reporting today's interview with the lawyer was basically an interrogation lasting over 8 hours. No decisions made yet.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -interview

In my book, that's not an interview, that's a coercive interrogation leading the subject towards pleading guilty...