Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Volunteering got complicated …..

414 replies

MellowTiger · 22/02/2025 00:00

I didn’t really know how to title this post. My DH & I volunteer for the same charity. He became involved with volunteer (female) -unknown to me this has been off and on for 6 years. It’s mainly s/text and phone/video call but it’s been very explicit & talk of moving in together. I found out & when challenged he ended it.
OW then started to be awkward with me in online meetings etc (we rarely meet F2F). It got to the point where other people commented on it. We were due to meet F2F as a group so I messaged OW saying requesting she didn’t attend (I have to go she doesn’t). I also said that if she continued being the way she was I would take it further in the organisation and that she couldn’t deny the relationship because I have photos of their conversations.
She put in a complaint saying I had threatened her, which has now been upheld and I now have to be interviewed to be sanctioned.
I feel this is really unfair AIBU? This is a personal matter, I was polite and although I see there was 100 ways to word it, I don’t think saying I’ll take it further (meaning a formal complaint) is really a threat. We ended up cancelling the F2F cos I said I wouldn’t go and without me it can’t take place.
Regardless of the sanction outcome I want to stop volunteering, but this could lead to the charity closure, so my DH says I should carry on. I don’t know what to do.

OP posts:
category12 · 23/02/2025 15:49

Can you elaborate on how she was "verbally attacking" you in meetings? What sort of things was she saying?

Because you initially said she was being "awkward" in meetings, which seems a bit different.

Original poster
MellowTiger · 23/02/2025 15:38

LIZS · 22/02/2025 12:53

But it is not op place to decide who can and can't attend meetings. She clearly wants ow out but her h can continue as before.

Just to clear up the meeting issue, it a meeting I HAD to go to, the OW didn’t. I wasn’t bothered about her going until she started to act in the way she did - commenting on my work standard, querying decisions that had been made (targeting me even when they weren’t within my remit) and generally being awkward, verging on bullying and showing no respect. I was worried her attendance at the meeting was purely to verbally attack me at every opportunity. In the end, I have cancelled the whole meeting as I have no with to be face to face with her. No one, including the OW, was prepared to arrange the meeting without me.

OP posts:
FancyBiscuitsLevel · 23/02/2025 14:59

OP - your DH and the OW have been unspeakably selfish. You are allowed to be selfish too.

The charity will find someone to replace you or fold. If it folds, then frankly it will be a good thing to remove any trace of the OW from yours and DHs lives. If you and your DH want your marriage to survive, you can’t really be part of something that involves her.

Walk away, insist your DH does too as a condition of you committing to the marriage surviving.

“Irreplaceable” people are often replaced, if you want to show a bit more kindness to the charity, give them a few months to find someone else.

ForZanyAquaViewer · 23/02/2025 14:47

MellowTiger · 23/02/2025 14:33

I can’t really answer those questions because it would potentially make the charity identifiable, but there is a proper HR structure in place. I run a section of the charity.

Show quote history

There are over 170,000 registered charities in the U.K. (so, under the Charity Commission) and an estimated 100,000 unregistered (so, with an income of under £5K).

As we have no other information and don’t even know your location, telling us whether you’re a Trustee and whether the charity has paid staff (including a CEO) will not make it identifiable. It’ll just mean people who know about charity structure and governance are better able to offer useful advice.

Original poster
MellowTiger · 23/02/2025 14:33

saraclara · 22/02/2025 15:02

@MellowTiger can you confirm whether or not you are a trustee? Does your organisation have any paid staff/a CEO?

I don't understand why you think the charity will have to fold without you. I'm guessing it's tiny then? How many trustees are there?

It would be helpful to know, in order to understand the structure, HR resources and general expertise within the charity.

I can’t really answer those questions because it would potentially make the charity identifiable, but there is a proper HR structure in place. I run a section of the charity.

OP posts:
Numberfish · 23/02/2025 06:44

She IS the baddie here. It’s rarely clearer.

Convolvulus · 22/02/2025 23:23

justasking111 · 22/02/2025 22:24

I've seen too many idiot trustees. They'd not be sanctioning me.

Quite. I've known some absolutely brilliant charity trustees, but also sadly some who were clearly bonkers.

RockyRogue1001 · 22/02/2025 23:09

ReadingSoManyThreads · 22/02/2025 21:01

"I now have to be interviewed to be sanctioned"

No you don't - you're a volunteer.

Either don't attend and stop volunteering for them, as you've stated you want to do.

Or go and provide all of your evidence to plead your case.

What do you want the outcome to be? Because if you really want to stop volunteering, just do it, and put it behind you.

This!!!!! And the other comments on a similar theme.

So sorry you're going through this, @MellowTiger
I hope you'll put yourself first, because in all of this, you sound bottom of everyone's list, and I fund that sad

justasking111 · 22/02/2025 22:24

I've seen too many idiot trustees. They'd not be sanctioning me.

Breezeblock · 22/02/2025 21:10

I would struggle with the sanctioned bit here. I think I would probably just hand my notice in. You don’t have to hang around working for free with your husband and the woman he had an affair with while getting censured on how exactly you should behave appropriately around them. They need you more than you need them.

ReadingSoManyThreads · 22/02/2025 21:01

"I now have to be interviewed to be sanctioned"

No you don't - you're a volunteer.

Either don't attend and stop volunteering for them, as you've stated you want to do.

Or go and provide all of your evidence to plead your case.

What do you want the outcome to be? Because if you really want to stop volunteering, just do it, and put it behind you.

Crupts · 22/02/2025 19:22

OP, should push back hard with her husband and the charity.

Scummy husbands behaviour with this woman means I no longer wish to be involved.

Thats it. There will be gossip anyway.
Lay it firmly at your husbands door and this womans subsequent aggression towards you.

You have no shame here.
It is all there.

I suspect you are very vulnerable that you are tolerating this.

Perhaps speak to Women's aid for support.

ArtyFartyHippopotamus · 22/02/2025 19:01

You do what is best for you! If the charity closes it 100% your husband’s fault. He is nothing more than a manipulative dirty old man. You are worth more than this. He hasn’t treated you with respect, tell the OW she is welcome to your ‘sloppy seconds.’ Move on with your life with people who value and respect you.

trivialMorning · 22/02/2025 18:45

Regardless of the sanction outcome I want to stop volunteering, but this could lead to the charity closure, so my DH says I should carry on. I don’t know what to do.

Then stop - but make sure it what you really want to do.

If the charity closes well they really should have some plan in place rather than relying one one volunteer who could always just stop or get ill -or they do have a plan but you are unware of it and that fear is being used to guilt you into continuing.

In hindsight reporting her behavior was probably best route than trying to sort it out with her before this meeting - hindsight is always 20/20 though.

I'd ignore DH - or work out why he wants you to stay when you don't want to.

Miaowzabella · 22/02/2025 18:33

TourangaLeila · 22/02/2025 17:52

  1. You DID threaten her. In fact I'd call is blackmail.
  2. Your anger should be directed towards your husband.

You can't tell other people who they are allowed to be angry with! In this case it's perfectly reasonable to be furious with both the cheating scum husband and his mistress. I'm just surprised the OP is still giving the time of day to either of them.

Miaowzabella · 22/02/2025 18:28

RodeoRoo · 22/02/2025 08:42

NB. It seems there are still many people in society who don't understand the volunteering industry. It's not a free for all walk-in, walk-out as and when business practice. There are policies and conduct to adhere to.

Well, yes, but what sanctions can the charity apply, apart from saying 'we no longer wish you to give us your time and skills free of charge'?

JLou08 · 22/02/2025 18:05

It was a threat. You used a threat to stop her participating in something. I can understand your reasons but you have gone about things in the wrong way, as soon as she started acting awkward around you you should have made a complaint yourself or at least has a discussion with management about what was going on.
Your DH doesn't want you to leave the role because he will lose his link to OW. I very much doubt his feelings have been switched off after a 6 year affair where he spoke about leaving you. I suspect he is biding time to get it started up again more discretely.
Leave him and the charity.

saraclara · 22/02/2025 18:02

Convolvulus · 22/02/2025 17:48

Would you not be concerned with the counter-complaint that OP inevitably has to make with regard to the volunteer's overt public hostility to her in dealing with charity work?

Show quote history

If OP had taken this straight to the board/whoever should be dealing with it, yes we'd have been concerned about it. But she didn't, and she's lost the high ground by basically blackmailing the OW.

OW got in first, so while the background will be heard, it's OP's actions that are to the fore, and what the meeting will be about.

ItTook9Years · 22/02/2025 17:59

Oblomov25 · 22/02/2025 15:52

@EmmaMaria

"The Equality Act 2010 doesn't apply to volunteers in the same way as employees, but organizations should still protect volunteers from discrimination. "

Is that not correct?

Who is being discriminated against in relation to a protected characteristic, exactly?

ItTook9Years · 22/02/2025 17:58

EmmaMaria · 22/02/2025 14:56

And the Equality Act doesn't cover volunteers as such, however in some cases the EA does apply.
The Equality Act applies to everywhere, and everyone, all the time. It is not a piece of employment legislation. It is a piece of legislation that covers equality in all aspects of life.

Show quote history

Which bit of the EA is a concern here, exactly?

ItTook9Years · 22/02/2025 17:56

Oblomov25 · 22/02/2025 13:45

@ItTook9Years

I appreciate Charities have a Code of Conduct. And the Equality Act doesn't cover volunteers as such, however in some cases the EA does apply. Or rather you can't just have charities behaving willy nilly, unreasonably.

Yes, but this case would not have EA considerations on the basis of the info here.

TourangaLeila · 22/02/2025 17:52
  1. You DID threaten her. In fact I'd call is blackmail.
  2. Your anger should be directed towards your husband.
Convolvulus · 22/02/2025 17:48

saraclara · 22/02/2025 13:56

This thread is absolutely batshit. The lack of logical thinking from most posters, or of any consideration at all for what is and isn't acceptable people management within a charity, is just insane.

A charity is not exempt from HR regulations. If anything they have to be even more careful, because volunteers can be more difficult to manage.

I am both a charity trustee, and a normal volunteer, and have seen situations from both sides. Small charities are even more at risk from getting these things wrong, as they don't have the same structural scale as large NGOs and private companies, and are often tempted to cut corners on expensive HR advice.

In my organisation, among other things, we have had to ask a trustee to step down (rather than be pushed) and manage a safeguarding situation by asking a volunteer to step down from the role they were doing, to one where their mis-step could not be repeated.

We would absolutely be taking the OW's complaint seriously. The rights and wrongs of the affair would not be our business. We would only be concerned with the complaint regarding OP's threat, and would be contacting our HR company to ensure that we addressed the situation correctly.

Edited

Would you not be concerned with the counter-complaint that OP inevitably has to make with regard to the volunteer's overt public hostility to her in dealing with charity work?

Convolvulus · 22/02/2025 17:44

LIZS · 22/02/2025 12:53

But it is not op place to decide who can and can't attend meetings. She clearly wants ow out but her h can continue as before.

As you don't know what the powers of trustees at this charity are, you don't know whether it is OP's place or not.

Convolvulus · 22/02/2025 17:43

5128gap · 22/02/2025 10:37

The OP didn't warn her not to behave in a certain way. She told her not to attend a meeting. She messaged her saying if she didn't comply she would take it further and that she had photos of the affair messages. That's a world a way from 'Sylvia if you don't stop doing X,Y or Z (specific inappropriate behaviour) I will have to make a formal complaint about X, Y and Z (specific inappropriate behaviour)' OP made it clear she would reveal the affair in all its embarrassing explicit glory if the OW attended the meeting. That's is absolutely a threat.

Show quote history

That's a misrepresentation of what OP says. She said "I also said that if she continued being the way she was I would take it further in the organisation and that she couldn’t deny the relationship because I have photos of their conversations." That is exactly saying what you deem to be acceptable. She did not suggest this was tied in with attending the meeting (in respect of which OP was basically saying she would not attend if the OW did), and she only referred to having photographs to deter the OW from trying to make out that OP is fantasising about the affair.

If OW is publicly verbally attacking and targeting another volunteer, particularly one whose husband she has been shagging, she can hardly complain about that volunteer taking the approved complaints route to stop her.

Swipe left for the next trending thread