Personal relationship breakups are legion, as evidenced by the number of marriages that end in the divorce court. Mostly, divorce boils down to a squabble about the division of spoils from what the couple accumulated together and this is divided along the lines put in place by the Family Court of Australia.
What the public find titillating is a public falling out between lovers who are not married and whose jobs make them figures of contention in the business world. This is also loved by the media because it introduces that component that sells newspapers and keeps eyes glued to television screens - scandal !
Despite the loosening of moral restrictions in this permissive age we are all agog when a love affair between two people becomes a public brawl. Feminists jump to the defence of the " wronged woman " and if they both work for the same firm decisions are made at boardroom level to deal with the damage to public relations. Usually a settlement for a large sum of money ensures discretion.
It doesn't always work out that way, as a case now wending through the courts tends to illustrate. This lovers brawl involves the chief executive of a leading media company and a woman who held a senior executive position reporting to him. The media company closed ranks behind its highly valued decision maker and the women was paid $380,000 bonus to leave and find other employment.
This woman did not believe that she had been treated fairly - and she went public with her accusations. Every aspect of this steamy love affair got a public airing and aspects of the machinations of the media company came under public scrutiny when it was suggested that this woman executive had misused her company supplied credit card. Matters that were embarrassing to the media company began to be aired in public.
They immediately went to court and obtained an injunction, banning the woman from making further statements and disclosing any confidential information, talking to journalists or making adverse statements about the media company or appearing on social media. It was a complete information shutdown !
That injunction is of a temporary nature and the matter will be heard in court. There is now the suggestion that the media company may require the return of a claimed $262,000 of unauthorised spending on the womans company credit card and no doubt this may be examined - item by item - to determine authenticity. This will raise the matter of executive privilege that may cause adverse comment across the business world as the latitude of how individual purchasing power is distributed to those holding executive positions.
This is becoming a nightmare for the business world. Nomatter what rules are put in place, when two people develop an attraction to one another all restraint is abandoned if the chemistry of sex rears its head and can not be denied. No doubt many company boards will be casting a speculative eye over their management teams and wondering if this imbroglio making its way through the courts could ever apply to them ?
No comments:
Post a Comment