Vanja #66 wrote: ↑01 May 2024, 23:53
Cs98 wrote: ↑01 May 2024, 22:12
I think we should clarify for people how this process works, because there seems to be confusion about the role of the investigator in independent workplace investigations.
In cases like these the "independent investigator" gathers information and evidence trying to establish facts, they do not make proclamations of innocence or any recommendations about what the outcome of the grievance should be. It is the job of the board to decide the outcome. So when the press release from RB says that the "grievance has been dismissed" it simply means that (in this case) the controlling board member Yoovidhya has voted for dismissal. The release makes no mention of "innocence", or "cleared of wrongdoing", or what the investigation concluded. Simply put all we know is that the controlling board member voted against the grievance.
So you're saying not only the attorney but also Red Bull would stoop to short-term hiding behind self-proclaimed ruling, only to risk being fully exposed in the later appeal process where they have no control over the outcome? Seriously?
You can ignore what I'm saying but it doesn't change how this process works. So again, for those who are genuinely interested in how this works, the investigator
does not make any ruling or recommendation in the case, this is a simple misunderstanding on behalf of some. They are only there to gather information, the board makes the decision for how they want to proceed and are the ones responsible for that decision in a potential court case.
But the second part of your question, would RB stoop to hiding it? Or more specifically, would Yoovidhya (considering he is the only relevant board member) stoop to hiding it? That is the relevant question to ask. Given the damning evidence that was leaked, given the obvious discomfort from RB Austria with how Yoovidhya handled the decision, I would say it's very likely they did stoop to hiding it, yes.