Wouter wrote: ↑28 Aug 2024, 11:00
Dunlay wrote: ↑28 Aug 2024, 03:25
Do you have a source for the claim you made that it wasn't KC, but Red Bull that dismissed the case?
.
According to this statement from RB it were not the KC's who dismissed the case. They gave there conclusions and RB
accepted and adopted them by dismissing the case.
.
08 Aug 2024
“Earlier this year a complaint raised against Christian Horner was investigated. That complaint was dealt with through the company’s grievance procedure by the appointment of an independent KC who dismissed the grievance.
“The complainant exercised the right to appeal, and the appeal was carried out by another independent KC. All stages of the appeal process have now been concluded, with the final outcome that the appeal is not being upheld.
“The KC’s conclusions have been accepted and adopted by Red Bull. The internal process has concluded.
“The company respects the privacy of all its employees and will not be making further public comment on this matter at this time.
“Red Bull is committed to continuing to meet the highest workplace standards.”
It says very specifically at the end of the first paragraph that it was the KC who dismissed the grievance.
Internally, Red Bull adopted the same conclusion, which had dismissed the complaint, with reasons, I would assume.
Inserting two commas as such :
"That complaint was dealt with through the company’s grievance procedure, by the appointment of an independent KC, who dismissed the grievance." would change the meaning to Red Bull dismissing the case.
In the original text, it is meant the KC is the party dismissing the complaint.