Whether or not he's found to non-adhenrence in the end, has little to do with whether or not they're suspending him while the investigation is ongoing. Those are two separate issues.101FlyingDutchman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2024, 22:14He’s not but not sure what jurisdiction you’re in but corporate policies in the UK absolutely apply to all. And if found non adherence any lawyer worth their salt will seek huge payouts. Reputational damage that any large FTSE company would rather avoid!
I'm speaking about the decision not to suspend him while the investigation is ongoing. And sticking to that topic, like I said: totality of the circumstances. There's a lot of factors to consider when considering a suspension, including whether or not the two employees can be separated. It's a possibility that Red Bull (Racing) decided to grant the complainant paid leave while the investigation is ongoing. This is only logical. Horner is the more important of the two, so you don't want to suspend him on a whim.
Corporate policies do not apply (equally) to all in this case. If you truly believe that, then I'd say you're deluding yourself. There's a reason Horner is still at work for the time being - it's because Red Bull Racing believes that it's a bigger loss (either directly or PR wise) to suspend him than keeping him working until this is resolved. If he has done something wrong, then he will have to go - but until that is concluded, they want him in office.