For getting ratted at the Christmas party and taking a dump in the punch.
Help us out here readers: what on earth does “matters regarding personal conduct unrelated to the operations or financials of the Company” mean? We ask because that's the terminology F5 Networks has used to announce the departure of CEO, president and director Manuel Rivelo, effective immediately. Rivelo's successor is John …
We were told to leave the office, immediately, one evening.
We later found out that one male employee had gone up to one of the PAs, opened his trousers and asked her, what she could do with it? He quickly found out her answer, as she buzzed her boss and the guy was escorted out of the building, after we had been asked to leave...
The big question is, what did he tell his fiancé, when he got home? "Hi honey, I got fired today."
Perhaps it's an underhand way of getting him to fess up himself. Since those defamation-free weasel words could cover anything from farting in the boardroom, to banging the underage intern in a company-paid luxury hotel suite after snorting prodigious quantities of coke, they might figure that he'll be straight onto the news saying "No! No! It's nothing like that, all I did was...".
Where does it say it had no relevance to the company?
"unrelated to the operations or financials" means that whatever happened has not - so far - had a detrimental effect to the bottom line of the company.
But "personal conduct" could mean anything - from sexual harrassment or bullying in the workplace (which clearly has relevance and would result in disciplinary action), to drugs or criminal activity outside of the workplace, which whilst not immediately impacting the company has the potential to do so.
What they are really trying to say is that whatever cause existed to sack the CEO, they want to reassure investors that the company itself is not on the brink of collapse.
I suspect that the words have been carefully chose to avoid any implication of problems for the company's operations. In other words 'our company financial health is rudely perfect so don't ask'. One can speculate that he did something to affect relations in one way or another, but speculation about the real issue, as ever is just that, often with no justification.
This post has been deleted by its author
When I was at Uni, oooh, many years ago...the regulations stated that Professors could only be dismissed for 'Gross Moral Turpitude', which made us wonder exactly how bad something had to be before it became 'Gross'. Perhaps rogering the secretary was mere standard moral turpitude, but rogering a donkey... in the chapel...during the sermon..?
Naughty naughty, very naughty...
I'd be guessing he posted the wrong picture on the wrong site somewhere, and didn't take it down fast enough for the wrong person not to see it. Though one does wonder why it's OK for whoever reported it to be on that sort of site but not the boss...
'Teach' icon as it's a discipline thing. Which might be true in more ways than one! Total random speculation, it's our speciality.
Either he admitted he's a Trump supporter, or there is some serious financial shenanigans going on in the company they just found out about and they want a scapegoat before the SEC comes knocking.
Oh wait, that second would usually call for a promotion, wouldn't it?
Caught shagging the secretary has to be favourite. So traditional as a reason for sudden defenestration that you have to wonder why so many senior execs do it.
You'd almost think that our lords and masters were actually a bit thick....
 During office hours for bonus "belongings are in the street and you can shove yer golden handshake where the sun shines" value.