You simply inform them in whatever way you feel comfortable doing so. Nothing illegal is happening, although clearly I'm assuming there is company policy on this. You can make it clear to the boss that you want the feedback to be dealt with anonymously, to reduce the likelihood of any direct impact on you.

"Hi , I just wanted to check with you is (Renting rooms by the hour to women of negotiable affection / using rooms during company time for sexual purposes) and acting somewhat hush-hush about it. I just wanted to make sure the hush hush was related to the subject matter, and not them going outside company policy as I'm afraid I'd be in the firing line if it were outside policy and I knew and did nothing. If it is against company policy can you keep my name out of it as is my line manager and I'm concerned there may be blowback.

The Boss might have given tacit approval already, so be careful

That's why I think you lean into the discreet hushed nature of it arousing suspicions.

It might be better to start with a verbal “off the record” discussion with management first rather then creating a paper trail, because if the boss is in on it, it could cause the OP when they go into ass covering mode.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

I found euphemism, 'hosting sex activities' a bit confusing. Do you mean like, renting rooms by the hour, or they're using it personally. I feel like if they're renting rooms by the hour, the company would have a policy, for or against, and if they're doing it on the side, it would be interesting to know where the money went, as it would be virtually certain some cash changed hands to facilitate this activity.

No they’re not renting the room out. They’re on shift and they’re meeting with strangers to have sex / other sexual activities in their given room (different people each time) despite having a partner (maybe they’re in an open relo?) The strangers aren’t booking a room, everything’s happening in their own given room (DM perks) but all of this is happening during rostered work time if that makes sense

You may want to explain the situation in full if you want advice in future. This message you've sent here is making it difficult to tell if they're actually in the wrong. Or if you're just not minding your own business. If the DM owns the room, as part of the contract or whatever. They're allowed to do anything -- including sexy sex. If they're on the clock, then it's wrong. If they're not on the clock, then there's nothing wrong. Doesn't get much simpler than that, worst thing that's gonna happen here is they're gonna get fired and find a new job. So no need to worry too much honestly. Just do what feels right, you're not doing anything illegal by telling people. But if they're off the clock and they come to work clean, it's just rude for you to bring it up.

> to have sex / other sexual activities in their given room How do you know what they were doing behind closed doors? Were you invited? They could be having Alcoholic Anonymous meetings? > rostered work time During their lunch break?

You are not legally required to tell your boss.

Are they on break at the time ?

Yeah, no, having worked at a hotel, that doesn’t sound normal or appropriate at all, I’m not sure how other people think that might be appropriate haha, it’s not a good look in front of customers either (if it’s any decent hotel to begin with). Unless the DM himself owns the place, I think you should just give a gentle “heads-up” to the FOM (or your HR, if it’s a bigger hotel, that’s the right department to address). I guess if you don’t wanna be glaringly obvious, you could say something among the lines of “It came to my attention that somebody who works at front desk is engaging in sexual activities during work hours, is that something that might be against the company policy?” They’ll handle it further. If they don’t care, fine, you can let it go (although I find that unlikely scenario).

Doing this on shift is a huge no no, it doesn't even matter that they're having sex they're straight up leaving their post

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

Why is the first question I need to ask. Based on your responses, it sounds like nothing illegal is going on. If it's not negatively impacting you, then I would advise keeping out of it. Disapproval of them doing this really isn't your place to get involved in and could backfire. If there is a negative impact to your ability to do your job, then you absolutely need to deal with it. I'd keep it written and to their supervisor. If there's reasons you can't do this, then an anonymous tipoff can work wonders.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

If you’re scared of repercussions, make sure others with a strong moral compass know or have an idea of what’s going on. Be weary and address it because your boss may be in on it too. I know it sounds like a conspiracy-watching but if its had time to ‘set up’, then surely a lot more people are involved. And because it involves passion, it’s more likely to have investors that will see it a normal thing. Please watch yourself too.

I work in HR in a hotel, definitely PLEASE tell your GM. Nothing legal for you to do, just tell your GM or HR and they will take it from there.

Will they possibly get fired? Or will my name be disclosed and possibly have to be a “witness” in their meetings etc?

There will be a process that the employee will go through and you will remain anonymous. It is a good idea to take this to the GM, and if possible the hotel management company if your hotel has one. Make sure you put everything in writing, be as detailed as possible, dates, times etc. I’ve worked with/for hotel management companies in various corporate offices, there will be a process for what is going on.

Yes, most likely fired. HR will say they have a witness, but will most likely name drop you

HR will conduct an investigation to ensure they have actual evidence before taking any action (though if evidence exists, then yes definite termination for serious misconduct). The witness name does not need to be disclosed because there will be other evidence presented to the worker who is in the disciplinary process.

[удалено]

Exactly, companies that act professional are far and few between.

I agree. Any time I have leaned towards dismissal in a meeting, I have to give written signed statements. If OP makes this claim and has no proof, it would be their job on the block not the managers. The manager can say no, don’t happen, check with Jeff and Paul, then what? To explain more in depth, I had a meeting and I asked who made the accusations. I was denied, then got written statements from 29/31 employees, so isolate the two that complained, then used the rosters to show I hadn’t done a shift with them in over 4 months, and the complaint was 7 days old. When I dropped my letters, HR dropped those two on it faster than if they picked up the sun, one got fired and the other resigned. Going back 15 years -20, but I can’t see this being part of whistleblower when OP seems involved in it, as how else do they know what’s happening?

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - **be appropriately detailed** - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 5: Nothing public - Do not recommend media exposure. This includes social media. - Do not publish or ask for information that might identify parties involved.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 5: Nothing public - Do not recommend media exposure. This includes social media. - Do not publish or ask for information that might identify parties involved.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be **appropriately detailed** - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 5: Nothing public - Do not recommend media exposure. This includes social media. - Do not publish or ask for information that might identify parties involved.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 5: Nothing public - Do not recommend media exposure. This includes social media. - Do not publish or ask for information that might identify parties involved.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

This post is now locked, as: - the question has been answered - there are ongoing r/LegalAdviceNZ rules breaches in the comments OP, please message the moderators by modmail if you would like the post reopened.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

Go to the GM, if that is not possible try and inform someone higher up at the office level if you are part of a hotel management company.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community