But then we remembered his odious contribution to CLEO Magazine where, clad in a vest, the banking denizen mused:
I was attracted to banking because it seemed interesting and prestigious. To be successful you need to be driven and thick-skinned – I guess the ‘Alpha Male’ type. I deal with pressure by maximising my fun time. The stereotype of women going after bankers is hopefully true and, after this feature, will happen more often! A woman’s stock goes up if she has a great smile, big brown eyes and is fun and interesting. I’m not into the whole dinner/movie/drink routine – I like someone who is adventurous and always willing to do something out of her comfort zone. Success for me is doing whatever makes you happy.
One of our readers commented that youngsters like Mr Cannon are entitled to make at least one mistake in their careers and we agree. Subject to good behaviour, we intend to delete this and our earlier post on 1 April next year – our annual day for FS sentence commutations. However, such generosity was regrettably not afforded to several other Citibank workers caught up in Mr Cannon’s email debacle.
We received the following rumour from an anonymous Citi insider a few days ago:
Following on from your story on 17 October (“Lock Up Your Daughters”) regarding the circulation of the emails sent from Neil Cannon’s work email account, you may remember that the SMH reported that Citi sacked Hugh Dive (Building Materials analyst) and two graduate employees.
Well, it’s true. It also appears that at least one of them is taking action against Citi for unfair dismissal.
I mean, everyone knows that we have to bend over and take it from New York, but the sacking of the three of them via an edict from NY was completely over the top, considering that a number of senior people were responsible for circulating the email outside Citi (including to our institutional clients) and all they received were verbal warnings.
Reminds me of the ham sandwich story that you reported as well – the two secretaries involved were shafted but the lawyers got off scot-free. Although since Hugh sent the article to the AFR while at a boozy lunch, which was then published in the Rear View column the next day, they could hardly turn a blind eye.
I don’t know what the claims will consist of, but they’re completely paranoid here ever since the ASIC investigation/litigation back in 2007 involving allegations of insider trading when Citi acted for Toll in its takeover of Patricks in 2005.
We sent the following edited email to the head of Corporate Affairs at Citibank (Australia) earlier today to get the scoop:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: URGENT: Request for Comment
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:17:54 -0500
From: news@firmspy.com
To: <name@citi.com>
Cc: <name@citi.com>Dear [name]
We’re informed that one of the individuals entangled in Neil Cannon’s viral email infamy – namely, one of those who first disseminated the email outside of the bank, such that it could forever more be etched on the poisonous walls of FS ingnominy – and who was fired by the bank for his sins, has commenced legal proceedings. We understand he’s alleging unfair dismissal, or some such.
What sayeth Citi? If it indeed were all a hoax and all recipients and the public at large informed of its illegitimacy, how can such an upstanding foreign company trying to be taken seriously in Australia fire one of its own for, well, sending a mere email?
Does the firm possess such thoughtless and prompt draconianism with its customers when bills are overdue? What about if they send a whimsical letter to their bank manager? Should we alert Today Tonight?
Regards,
FS
We received the following reply earlier today:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: URGENT: Request for Comment
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:57:36 +1100
From: “name ” <name@citi.com>
To: “news@firmspy.com” <news@firmspy.com>
Cc: “name” <name@citi.com>Hi FS
We don’t comment on individual’s circumstances.
[name]
[name]
Corporate Affairs
Citi Australia
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
I don’t see the big deal – if you hit forward on an email from your work account then you had better be able to justify it in a late afternoon meeting with HR and your supervisor (with a black bin liner discreetly sitting in the corner of the meeting room). Sure you might want to have a laugh and share it with your friends, but It’s really not that hard to just hit delete. Indeed it takes less clicks than forwarding it on.
I work in HR and it amazes me that people have an expectation of privacy when it comes to emails. As per Vampire’s post, delete emails you recieve that you know aren’t appropriate (in fact right back in a separate email that you don’t want to recieve emails like that any more), don’t forward them on and don’t write anything stupid (a la Luis Izzo) yourself!
@ Vampire and DL – take your point that it is perhaps morally suspect to circulate the emails but do you really think the conduct warranted – presumably – summary termination? The emails weren’t pornographic, racist or otherwise illegal. If they were defamatory, I think Neil brought it on himself by doing the interview for the Cleo Man-whore of the Year contest.
It’s just a typical overreaction by a corporation obsessed with its reputation (whatever that is) and wouldn’t know an unfair dismissal law if – to use the words of the Citi insider – it took them from behind.
Citi have obviously learnt nothing from ham sandwich-gate. If you’re going to bone people for minor policy breaches, then at least pay them enough hush money so this sort of thing doesn’t happen.
Duh.
For this act of malice the wrongdoers ought to be purged from the workplace. They do not contribute to positive office culture.
It is funny banter. Fair play to you. I’m sorry you lost your jobs.
@ Breakfast.
Fair point. But if three of your co-workers have got together to humiliate you not just at the pub but to the whole world in such a manner I think it is fair enough to hand the bin liners out to those responsible. It might (but not certainly) be different if they pulled a humiliating prank on him at the pub on Friday night, where the humiliation is limited to those who were there but this is quite something else.
I think a fairly big black line can be drawn between choosing to do the Cleo thing and having the email circulated by your co-workers. In the world of the forwarded email, it was ridiculed first and ask questions later. When I initially had the email land in my inbox, I thought that the guy was a complete jerk (as did many). Now it turns out that he didn’t actually compose or send the email.
@DL – couldn’t agree more. I just recently learnt that if I send an email from my hotmail/gmail account to another external email address using the desktop at work, the boffins in IT can pull the email i sent through my gmail account off the work servers (and no they aren’t logging into the gmail account to do it).
Unless there’s talk that someone was ID’d as the actual sender, I’m going to continue to assume that he actually did send the email and decided to claim otherwise after it all went horribly wrong for him.
How on earth does citi know that he didn’t send it?
@Vampire
Absolutely agree with you, it’s just that I don’t think Citi is motivated by redressing the humiliation suffered by this guy. Look at the date of the initial email in the original story – it was sent from Cannon’s email address in July. It didn’t go viral until October. Why on God’s earth didn’t they nip it in the bud in those 3 months? Surely someone of some level of seniority must have seen the email. Just smells fishy.
In addition, the story doesn’t specify the involvement of the 3 people shafted, other than Mr Dive who sent it to the AFR (apparently). Were the others boned for creating the email or circulating it (like so many others undoubtedly did)?
Regardless of who sent what, there is no doubt that this guy is a self absorbed tool.
Good to see that he’s keeping the teeth whitening industry chugging along in these difficult times.
Wonder if Neil is mates with Luis Izzo
Hi DL! You didn’t need to tell us that you work in Human Resources. Your terrible spelling, such as confusing ‘write’ and ‘right’ exposed you pretty quickly…