Volunteering got complicated …..

You can put in a complaint about her bullying you seperately, but it is not for this panel to address.

No, you are facing this panel because of your actions, not the OW's. You had the same opportunity to address her bullying as she did (by taking it to the seniors) but instead you decided to tackle it this way which was wrong. You need to show that you acknowledge that and take accountability for it.

YABU for staying with an arsewipe who cheated for six years. HTH

That’s as tiny as any charity can be - like I said it’s mandatory to have 3 trustees minimum.

Exactly, so it can't be "tiny", which is what I was referring to in the previous post.

However you look at this, it's sad and embarrassing, whichever charity this is, as a pp suggested assuming religious? As a trustee, people probably know ow had been having an affair with OP's Dh for 6 years, now she's got to go to a panel meeting. None of this is good.

It’s within OP’s power to stop volunteering (and imo she doesn’t need to resolve anything with her DH or consider him at all to do so) but if she wants to carry on it’s the charity she needs to deal with.

Well the “investigation” was carried out by one person and the 3 person panel is probably the other trustees. Any small charity needs at least 3 trustees.

@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?

I agree with all of this except perhaps the 'you can turn it around'. You probably could @MellowTiger but in my opinion you would be better to attend the sanction meeting, present your evidence that you made a polite request saying you hadn't wished to report her behaviour towards you, but if it didn't stop you would take that route. I don't agree with anyone who find that a threat, but as it's been taken further I would want my say.

After clearing it all up, yes, like others I would resign and find something better to do with my time. I'd find better people to associate with too.

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.

Um, no, it doesn't. It's about preventing discrimination in employment and in the conduct of business, third sector and of public services.

It doesn't apply to people in their home or in other private settings. Even though the Scottish Govt tried to regulate what people said to each other in their own living rooms.

Can't be that tiny if there's been an investigation and she now has to go to a "panel". I've been a trustee in various small charities and we've never had enough people to convene a "panel", we'd struggle to get two people to interview for a new GM!

No it doesn't. It covers employment (but that does include workers, which includes volunteers) and services. It doesn't cover "all aspects of life". I don't have to put wheelchair ramps in my house, for example. And I'm allowed to choose to use an older hairdresser purely on the basis of their age, if I want to. Because the EA does not apply to private individuals.

@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.

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.

Anyone can leave a voluntary role, at any time, for any reason, with or without consulting anyone else about the decision.

@BigHeadBertha

No support for ow. She chose to have an on-off affair. For 6 years!

I'm only trying to enlighten op on how her case might be seen by others, at pending meeting, from an HR side (not even HR myself!).

@saraclara

My point exactly! Even though she's a volunteer, charities must still be seen to be behaving reasonably.

I'm just saying that OP does need to go into this (the meeting) with her eyes wide open.

Is what she text to ow considered to be a 'threat'. They've presumably taken HR advice and upheld the complaint made by ow.

Maybe it's worth clarifying what OP meant by the OW being 'awkward' with her in zoom meetings? I assumed it meant that she was being hostile or obstructive - but did she mean 'awkward' as in 'embarrassed' as she'd been found out in some shameful behaviour with OP's husband? If other people noticed, either way it's not good - but can understand why telling her not to attend a meeting just because she was embarrassed may be a valid complaint from the charity's perspective (as presumably they don't know anything about the personal stuff)

A charity is not exempt from HR regulations.

Quite and that includes regulations regarding workplace relationships.

Extramarital affairs are particularly frowned on because they are controversial and may lead disruption in the workplace and affect the performance of involved and uninvolved employees (in this case volunteers).

Agree with @saraclara a very batshit thread

Essentially this is a woman with various legal and ethical obligations to a charity where her name is over the door.

She has handled this badly, there is no doubt about that. She should have disclosed that two volunteers had been having a relationship. One of them being her husband. And there was apparent animosity.

That way any potential safeguarding/conflicts of interest/data and compliance breaches could be understood and managed.

Instead she chose to make a private threat because she did not want OW at a meeting (AGM I assume). OW has done the right thing by raising this as a complaint and other trustees now doing the right thing by investigating.

@MellowTiger this is all fairly simple tbh. You need to step down. Clearly there is a lack of understanding of the role you occupy. You are not a fit custodian for a public organisation.

Edited to add: and if it's true that this charity would not exist without you, then you have doubly failed in your role of managing risk and resilience.

I don't think the OW should be behaving badly but what OP was doing was essentially blackmail. 'Do as I want or I will out you'. It was a highly inappropriate way to address their personal differences.

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.

Professional workplaces have rules around fraternisation and relationships. Some have clauses stipulating relationships between colleagues must be declared. And there are some where an adulterous affair between colleagues where the spouse is also an employee could see both affair partners sacked for gross misconduct if the affair is deemed to be detrimental to their work or the workplace as a whole.

Which is where we are now - the fallout of this affair is affecting everyone.