When to Suspend an Employee During an Investigation

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, February 20, 2019

One of the most difficult aspects of a workplace investigation is the moment when the investigator or employer realises the immediate suspension of an employee is required. 

We examine the warning signs that a suspension might be necessary, as well as the best way to handle this complex eventuality.

The what and why of suspension

Most investigations will follow a relatively regular pattern. The workplace investigator gathers information, a report is submitted and disciplinary action may or may not be taken by the employer. However, occasionally events can arise, requiring that an employee be suspended immediately before or during the investigation. Two questions arise - when and how should suspensions occur?

Suspension involves a compulsory period of absence from the workplace for the employee in question. Suspension will include full pay and any other entitlements accruing to the employee. This is in contrast to an employee being 'stood down' - where the employer has no further work available and payment is not required.

gauging the necessity of suspension 

So when is it warranted to suspend an employee during the course of a workplace investigation? Of course employers must do their best to prevent a workplace difficultly from snowballing in the first place. Preventative measures and policies will hopefully reduce the likelihood of misconduct occurring. 

Yet at times, a suspension becomes necessary before or during the course of an investigation. The types of serious misconduct that can require suspension include suspected fraud, assault or theft. A suspension will also be necessary if there is a serious possibility that the employee might tamper with evidence, or disrupt the investigative process. 

A 'suspicion' of misconduct cannot be a mere whispered rumour or gut feel. In essence, a prima facie case (a reasonable assumption on available evidence) should exist to demonstrate that the employee in question has in all likelihood engaged in a serious act of misconduct. 

The rules of procedural fairness dictate that the investigation be even-handed and impartial throughout - with no recommendations of any kind being made by an investigator until the compilation and presentation of the investigative report. 

However, sometimes allegations are particularly serious and time is of the essence. A risk assessment is required, as well as communication between the investigator and the employer regarding their immediately concerns.

is a suspension a 'legal and reasonable' direction?

In the case of Avenia v Railway Transport and Health Fund [2017], the Federal Court held that employers can issue 'legal and reasonable directions' to staff, with such directions including suspensions. Dr Avenia was the subject of an investigation into allegations of misconduct and was suspended on full pay, pending the investigation. 

The court found that this action by the employer was legal and reasonable due to the nature of the allegations and did not constitute, as Dr Avenia claimed, a case of unlawful termination.

balancing considerations

Suspension during a workplace investigation can certainly create unique challenges. The suspended party might become quite uncooperative and other staff might make assumptions about this person while providing evidence. A clear description of the suspension process must be provided within the investigative report, and a communication strategy put in place by the employer. 

Procedural fairness is the centrepiece of workplace investigations. However, employee welfare, health and safety are also essential considerations. Thorough documentation should be kept of any suspensions, with workplace investigators taking detailed evidence from the employer and others regarding this complex situation.

If an employee engages in misconduct and the employer suspends them before the disciplinary investigation, a fair procedure must be followed. If you need assistance on how to investigate and/or how to respond to inappropriate workplace behaviour, contact WISE today!

Briginshaw Applied: Weighing Up The Evidence

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, February 13, 2019

For those involved in workplace investigations, one court case seems to be of central importance - Briginshaw v Briginshaw. Interestingly, this 1938 case is actually about alleged adultery in the context of divorce! So the question immediately arises - why do the concepts in Briginshaw seem to hold sway in the context of workplace investigations? 

In a nutshell, the Briginshaw principle acknowledges that evidentiary requirements in civil cases will necessarily vary, depending upon the gravity of allegations made. Yet it is also important to know the difference between Briginshaw and the actual standard of proof that applies in all civil cases, such as workplace wrongs - namely the balance of probabilities.

is the balance of probabilities the same thing as briginshaw?

To speak of the Briginshaw 'standard' can cause unnecessary confusion. It is the balance of probabilities that is the standard of proof in civil matters, such as workplace disputes. The Briginshaw principle simply helps courts and tribunals to evaluate available evidence when considering this standard - particularly where serious accusations are made.

Think of the types of grave allegations or proposed actions that can occur in civil contexts: child sexual abuse, the need to deprive a mental health patient of their liberty, being labelled as a bully or harasser in the workplace, and so on. 

In such serious matters, it is clear that available evidence must be strong, cogent and objective. Thus while the standard of proof always remains the same, the Briginshaw principle requires serious allegations to be backed by particularly compelling evidence.

serious allegations - establishing the facts 

In Natalie Bain v CPB Contractors Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 6273 (9 October 2018) the plaintiff's colleague Mr Skinner accused Ms Bain of trying to hit him while she was driving a heavy truck at full speed. The Commission expressed concern at the very grave nature of these accusations, and the severe consequences for Ms Bain should such facts be established. 

In assessing the evidence both from Mr Skinner and two witnesses, Senior Deputy President Hamberger described Mr Skinner's evidence as 'inherently implausible', noting that he also had 'reason to seriously doubt the veracity of the evidence' put forward by two alleged witnesses.

SDP Hamberger provides an excellent nutshell summary of Briginshaw: 'Consistent with the principle in Briginshaw, therefore, one would need very good evidence before accepting that such an allegation is true on the balance of probabilities.' 

When we consider the task of a workplace investigator, the principle in Briginshaw - as we have seen played out in the Bain matter - requires investigators to ensure that all evidence is elicited in a manner that is mindful of fairness and veracity. Bain reminds us that poorly presented allegations and unreliable witnesses will hamper any attempt to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that an event actually occurred. Investigators need to bear in mind that the quality of evidence obtained can seriously affect success in later proceedings.

an unfortunate reaction

In Shakespeare v Director General, a NSW teacher alleged as part of her grievance that colleagues had deliberately or recklessly exposed her to items - oranges and mandarins - which caused a severe allergic reaction. The implication was that fellow teachers had deliberately or recklessly placed Ms Shakespeare in medical peril - something that the worker strongly believed to be true. 

However, the NSW ADT stated that even though a party might believe passionately that they have been seriously wronged, this is not sufficient in itself to meet the necessary standard: 'we see no reason to doubt the sincerity or the strength of [the teacher's] belief that she was the victim of deliberate conduct. But this belief on her part, standing alone, does not constitute probative evidence on the question.' 

Making defensible findings 

This is a good reminder of the need for workplace investigators to elicit cogent, comprehensive and objective evidence from a number of sources when making findings. In the face of serious allegations, numerous sources of data and testimony should be gathered prior to findings being made. 

Distinguishing Briginshaw from the standard of proof might seem like splitting hairs, yet a solid understanding of Briginshaw in action will assist investigators to gather and analyse evidence fairly and correctly. 

If you are unsure of how to use Briginshaw when making findings for investigations, WISE provides independent, supported investigation services. Contact us today!

Why Counter Allegations Must Be Investigated

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, February 06, 2019

In the usual course of workplace investigations, it is often one person's word against another's. This is particularly the case when a serious allegation such as sexual misconduct has been made, and there are unlikely to be any witnesses to the event. 

When a serious allegation has been made, often the 'accused' then makes their own claims against the accuser, resulting in cross and counter-allegations.

the difficulty this causes for investigators

Occasionally, counter allegations are made immediately after the investigation is made known to the respondent, and this can make it more difficult for even the most experienced investigator to determine the true course of events leading up to that point. Counter-allegations also sometimes surface once an investigation is already in progress, making it harder for investigators to discern whether they are legitimate or simply made with the objective of revenge. 

The most important thing is that each allegation should be investigated independently. 

the danger of not investigating counter complaints 

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission demonstrates the importance of ensuring that all allegations are thoroughly and independently investigated, regardless of the circumstances in which they are made. 

In the decision of Watts v Ramsay Health Care it was determined that an employer's failure to investigate complaints of bullying was in itself a form of bullying. 

In these circumstances, Ms Watts repeatedly advised her employer that she was feeling harassed and bullied by her peers, including her co-workers making accusations of Ms Watts smoking cigarettes past her allocated break, smelling of alcohol and failing to perform her duties adequately. 

Ms Watts raised those concerns in the context of a formal investigation by her employers into her own conduct. 

However, her employers failed to investigate Ms Watts' counter complaints on the basis that there was insufficient information and evidence to support Ms Watts' allegations, against a background where she did not name the offenders. 

The Fair Work Commission ultimately determined the failure to investigate the bullying investigations was an inappropriate and unreasonable management decision, and a breach of the employer's own discrimination, bullying and harassment policy.

what are the key lessons?

Perhaps the most important aspect of undertaking fair workplace investigations is ensuring that internal policies are followed, in particular focusing on:

  • Determining and implementing the threshold requirement for commencing an investigation, for instance requiring a formal written complaint before management action can be taken;
  • Being flexible in interpreting the information provided and not imposing arbitrary minimum standards, for instance requiring direct evidence of wrongdoing;
  • Taking into account the context surrounding the making of the allegations. 

 Employers and management should also ensure that they do not make early judgments or allow themselves to be biased in the context in which the allegations are made. In the case of Ms Watts, for example, her employers appear to have judged her allegations on the basis that they were made during the course of her own performance management process. 

It can be challenging for investigators when presented with counter-allegations. If you want to ensure that you are undertaking investigations effectively, WISE provides a range of skills-based short courses for investigators, or formal qualifications such as Certificate IV and Diploma in Government Investigations.

Learning HR Lessons from Real World Cases

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, January 30, 2019

In recent years, there have been a number of cases heard in the Fair Work Commission and the courts which have resulted in important practical outcomes and learnings for employers, particularly in the area of workplace bullying. 

Let's take a look at some of these seminal cases.

volunteers can pursue bullying claims

The decision in Ryan v Returned & Services League of Australia (Queensland Branch) [2018] FWC 761 demonstrates that volunteers who are unpaid are entitled to pursue claims of bullying in the workplace. 

In this case, there was some dispute as to whether RSL Queensland, for which Mr Ryan volunteered, was a 'person conducting a business or undertaking' and a 'constitutionally covered business', within the meaning set out in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011

The commission ultimately determined that Mr Ryan was clearly a 'worker' within the meaning of the WHS Act, and held that the Pension Advocacy and Welfare Services (for which Mr Ryan worked, and which was under the aegis of RSL Queensland), was a constitutionally covered business at all relevant times when Mr Ryan was performing volunteer work. On this basis, it was found that Mr Ryan had sufficient standing to pursue a bullying complaint against RSL Queensland.

employer's failure to consider mental health

In Wearne v State of Victoria [2017] VSC 25, the Supreme Court of Victoria determined that an employer could be in breach of its duty to prevent injury to employees in circumstances where an employee complained of bullying and the employer failed to act on the complaints. 

Of particular significance for the court was the fact that the employee had advised her employer some years before she ceased work that she was suffering from occupational stress, was 'anxious about any ongoing contact' with former colleagues and experienced stress as a result. 

In particular, the court concluded that the worker's employers had 'lost sight of the goal of creating a workplace environment that was safe for the [worker's] mental state and minimised the risk of psychiatric injury'

Recommendation of workplace culture improvement plan

The Fair Work Commission determined in Sheikh v Civil Aviation Safety Authority & Ors [2016] FWC 7039 that while the specific circumstances of the employee's workplace did not support a finding of workplace bullying, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that some sort of remedial or consequential action was required. 

Accordingly, the employer was to design and implement a workplace culture improvement plan, which should focus on interpersonal relationship training, the introduction of a facilitated workshop regarding acceptable norms of behaviour, and the development of an appropriate and agreed work allocation protocol.

age discrimination 

A fairly significant compensatory award of $31,420 was awarded to the complainant in the NSW decision of McEvoy v Acorn Stairlifts Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAD 273, following his allegations that his employment had been terminated when he was aged 62, because the worker had 'a bad back, bad hearing and was too old'.   

Although the company denied the worker's allegations, the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) found that the evidence suggested that it was 'more probable than not' that the worker was treated less favourably than he would have been if he had been younger.

reasonable management actions vs workplace bullying

In Ms SB [2014] FWC 2104, the Fair Work Commission considered what factors should be taken into account when determining whether an action was bullying or 'reasonable management behaviour'. 

An objective assessment must be made having regard to the circumstances and knowledge of those involved at the time, including what led to the management action, what occurred while it was in progress and what happened subsequently. Having regard to these factors, the Commission determined on this occasion that there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding of workplace bullying. 

It can be difficult for employers to interpret the findings and application of decisions made by the Fair Work Commission and various courts throughout Australia. If you require assistance in conducting workplace investigations, and making sound defensible findings, contact WISE today. 

Addressing Post-Investigation Workplace Culture

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Workplace investigations may cause disruption and even animosity in the workplace. An incident occurred and a workplace investigator must attempt to get to the heart of the problem. Once the investigation is over, there will inevitably be fallout in the workplace, which any employer would be well advised to address actively. 

We examine the pitfalls facing managers after a workplace investigation, and the best methods for getting the organisation on track once again.

dealing with the fallout

It is unfortunate that in the aftermath of a workplace investigation, some tension and negative emotions will almost certainly remain. Staff might be left stressed about the findings of the investigation itself and/or the possible ramifications into the future. Yet on the plus side, a workplace investigation has the potential to generate excellent learnings - and to guide the organisation to a fresh start and positive future. 

It is important that managers resist the temptation to 'let sleeping dogs lie' at the conclusion of the investigation. An outcome has been obtained, but how can the lessons learnt be put into practice, relationships repaired and morale improved?

learning from the investigation

Regardless of how discreet a workplace investigator might be, rumours related to the investigation can run riot both during and after the fact. Damage to workplace relationships is a distinct possibility in this environment. 

For example - learning that allegations have been substantiated against a colleague can lead to dismay, disbelief or even counter-attacks against the suspected informant. Management must face the post-investigation issues and ensure that communication with staff is as comprehensive and transparent as possible. 

And even after explanations are provided, a negative workplace culture can linger and should be addressed on an ongoing basis. Regular team meetings, one-on-ones and whole-group discussions should be open and encouraging. The best way to dispel a negative workplace culture is to candidly shine a light on post-investigation issues as and when they arise.

addressing policy shortcomings 

It is important to ensure that issues are not simply aired: policy shortcomings must also be clearly identified and a plan of action put in place. This can have two benefits. Firstly, a plan that reflects the input of staff will foster confidence that grievances have actually been heard and considered by management. And even if not all aspects of the plan are desired by employees, there is at least some certainty about what the future holds. 

communicating with staff

An important aspect of communicating post-investigation is to redefine expectations. For example, if the investigation uncovers inappropriate behaviours that have developed across time, management needs to redefine and effectively explain what the 'new normal' looks like in this area. Where policy shortfalls are found, it is important that management acknowledges this and explains clearly how new behavioural expectations and standards will be put in place. 

Addressing staff concerns and providing support where needed is crucial in the aftermath of a workplace investigation. Don't bury your head in bureaucracy - take action! Let staff know that you are aware of the impacts of the investigation, and that their input matters. As the dust settles, feedback processes should be ongoing, and include staff wherever appropriate. This will be an important time for rebuilding work relationships.

leading an organisation into a positive culture future

In the aftermath of a challenging workplace investigation the future can feel somewhat uncertain. The process may have been unsettling and it is possible that colleagues have been on either side of accusations and recriminations. 

In order to lead the organisation into a positive-culture future, managers should be candid about the past but also hopeful about the organisation's potential. When carried out effectively, workplace investigations can sweep out undesirable cultural elements and provide a fresh start for policies, procedures, ways of working and overall workplace relationships. Leaders need to focus on this capability, and reiterate to staff the positives for the organisation into the future. 

Redefining workplace culture following an investigation can be a challenge. For strategies and advice to help your organisation re-establish strong workplace culture, contact WISE.

Whistleblower Changes - Getting Your Policies Right

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, January 16, 2019

With the new changes to whistleblower legislation soon to be debated and enacted, it's essential to assess whether or not your business is compliant. An important part of ensuring compliance with the changes lies in the development of robust policies to protect whistleblowers. The Human Resources function has a central role in preparing staff for the new approach to whistleblowing in the workplace. 

We examine best-practice policy development for the support of whistleblowers in the workplace, including compliance hazards to watch out for as the new legislation takes effect. 

recapping the changes

We have previously examined the architecture of the new regime, due to be enacted in early 2019. The proposed changes to legislation emphasise the need to not only protect workplace whistleblowers when they speak up, but to penalise organisations that fail to provide protection from harm. As part of these new requirements, whistleblower policies must be current, workable and robust. Tokenist policies and procedures that fail to effectively protect whistleblowers are no longer acceptable. 

how can hr guide the process

The most important focus for Human Resources departments will be the development and maintenance of a whistleblower-friendly culture: This is a good news story, the government has recognised the importance of whistleblowers in the fight against corporate wrongdoing and has acted in a positive way to encourage and support this practice. 

In developing quality training, in-house publicity, policies and procedures, HR needs to ensure that they guide staff and management towards a more supportive and knowledgeable stance in relation to whistleblower protections. 

best-practice in policy design - are you compliant? 

In view of the legislative changes due to be delivered, organisations are clearly required to 'get their house in order' when it comes to the development and maintenance of appropriate policy instruments. It is not sufficient for example to have policies that merely provide lip service to the ideal of whistleblower protections. 

There must be clear and user-friendly mechanisms for anonymous reporting and disclosure - even if there is a mere suspicion of corruption, graft, fraud or other foul play in the organisation. 

Importantly, it is no longer necessary to approach a direct supervisor to report an issue - the new legislation reflects a growing understanding that ostracism and discrimination can and does occur if a whistleblower is limited in terms of reporting mechanisms. 

Now is the time to examine your organisation's policies around whistleblower protection, to establish if they comply with the widened scope of the new legislation.

compliance hazards to watch out for

In developing the mechanisms to protect whistleblowers, there are a number of potential pitfalls to be aware of. Firstly, organisations can be liable if they fail to prevent harm to a whistleblower as a result of workplace reprisal. Reporting structures must be watertight in terms of anonymity and discretion. The smallest leak can lead to significant emotional and career harm for those brave enough to blow the whistle. 

A second related hazard is policies that are too general to be of any real use to potential whistleblowers. Policy documents should clearly and distinctly answer the 'what, how, who, when' of whistleblowing; when time is of the essence, it is important that staff can act immediately with their concerns. Further, whistleblower policies and training should explain clearly to all staff the repercussions for any harm caused to a whistleblower due to their disclosure. The key is a strong culture, where encouragement and protection of whistleblowers is a core element of business-as-usual.

how WISE's grapevine hotline can help

WISE is well versed in the changes of the whistleblowing legislation, and has recently published a whitepaper that can help answer all your questions regarding these changes. In addition, we have a whistleblower hotline, known as Grapevine, which has been running since 2016. The service is entirely professional and anonymous, and available 24/7 to concerned whistleblowers.

If you would like to know more or would like a cost estimate to implement our confidential hotline in your workplace, contact WISE now. By including the Grapevine Whistleblower Service in your whistleblower policy framework, your organisation can go a long way to fulfilling its requirements under the new legislation.

How to Transform a Toxic Workplace for a Productive 2019

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, January 09, 2019

A toxic workplace culture can place significant barriers in the way of achieving business objectives. If toxicity has invaded your office, it is likely that you are dealing with staff who are unproductive, resentful, unmotivated and perhaps difficult to discipline - and it can affect senior managers to junior employees. 

This can have significant effects on all areas of the business, and can even impact your bottom line. We give you tips on how you can start 2019 with a new, improved workplace culture - even if you're already seeing signs of disharmony.

signs your workplace culture is toxic

Psychologists and workplace consultants have long analysed the circumstances which cause a business to develop a toxic culture. Obvious signs that your company is affected may include:

  • Development of silos - This is demonstrated when workers fail to collaborate with each other or stick to their individual teams without sharing information, work or projects across the whole business. 
  • Drama - When 'business as usual' can't continue because histrionics and obstructive behaviour set agendas and cause issues and hypersensitivity. 
  • Lack of trust and 'backstabbing' - A little gossip is normal in any group environment. But when employees undermine each other regularly and fail to communicate effectively, it can be impossible to build or maintain a strong team culture. 
  • High leadership turnover - This can be a strong sign that either the business continues to select the wrong people for leadership positions (which is likely to have a negative impact on their direct reports) or the business does not support people who are trying to effect positive change. Either way, this does not bode well for success. 
  • Refusal to change - All businesses need to adapt, whether it is to keep up with technology, implement new ideas or listen to the needs of customers. A business where change is impossible is unable to grow; and this attitude suggests that management is perhaps not functioning optimally either. 

identifiying a toxic employee

Generally, a toxic culture starts with a small number of toxic employees, whose negative influence spreads throughout the office. Although there are no defined criteria for a toxic worker, they may display traits of:

  • Insistence on following 'rules' in an inflexible and unproductive manner;
  • Turning in work which is of a poorer quality than that of their colleagues;
  • Overrated belief in their own skills;
  • Self-centredness and arrogance;
  • Hypersensitivity to criticism;
  • Disruptive, dramatic or obstructive behaviour;
  • Paranoid tendencies; 
  • Gossip and general unpleasantness towards others;
  • Passive aggression displayed towards co-workers. 

If any of your staff are displaying a number of these behaviours, it would be wise to ensure that Human Resources is aware of, is monitoring the situation and that a strategy to address the behaviour is formulated immediately.

strategies for implementing a better culture

You can deal with a toxic workplace by:

  • Offering purpose-driven work (so that all staff can see how they are assisting the company and providing clear outputs)
  • Encouraging cultural improvements (by offering rewards for staff who have the right attitude or engage in positive actions)
  • Improving leadership (staff are more likely to listen to senior management who set a good example, engage them and inspire them to perform better). 

WHERE DO I START? 

Once you have identified that your workplace culture is toxic, it is time to disrupt the negativity. A cultural or climate survey may assist in pinpointing particular areas of or reasons for malcontent. 

One of the most important things to do in this scenario is to be honest with your staff about your assessment of the culture. Indicate that senior management is aware of the issues and is going to take steps to effect changes. 

This will likely encourage those staff who are committed to a fresh start, while at the same time causing those who are unwilling to cooperate to either resign or be adequately and reasonably performance managed. 

All staff should be involved in these announcements at the same time, ideally in the same room, so that the business develops a new, shared vision and has a joint positive attitude. All executives and senior management should be setting a clear example and be well versed in the proposed new company direction, so that everybody is reading from the same runsheet, and change really is demonstrated to be 'top down'.

Importantly, once an action plan for repairing the toxic culture is developed, it should immediately be implemented, so that enthusiasm and motivation does not wane. 

It takes commitment and determination to disrupt a toxic culture. It's best undertaken by moving ahead quickly with a clear course of action and employee buy-in. As employees practise the new rules and behaviours, your culture will become self-reinforcing. If you have allegations that demonstrate a toxic workplace culture, and would like a cultural survey or fact-finding investigation into the circumstances done - contact WISE today! 

Putting the 'Reasonable Person' to the Test

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, December 19, 2018

When determining what led to a certain set of events or making an important decision, it is essential for investigators and decision makers to have regard to an objective standard. 

In trying to get to the bottom of a situation or establishing an appropriate course of action, relying on the 'reasonable person' ensures that a broader perspective is taken. 

We look at exactly what this involves and how it can assist in achieving a fair and balanced outcome.  

What is the reasonable person test?

In Australian law, the reasonable person has been characterised as "the man on the Bondi tram" - an average member of society, who has various generalised attributes including risk aversion, sound judgment and a sense of self-preservation, which prevents them from walking blindly into danger. 

This reasonable person standard can be used to put a situation in context and to ensure that the decision maker does not rely on his own, perhaps limited or skewed, perspective. 

In a workplace investigation, taking the reasonable person test into account will assist an investigator in determining whether a respondent's conduct is reasonable or appropriate in the specific circumstances, and whether the complainant is being reasonable in their response or in feeling affronted or aggrieved.

a practical application of the test

One circumstance in which the reasonable person test was applied was in the Fair Work Commission's judgment in CFMEU v MSS Strategic Medical Pty Ltd; MSS Security Pty Ltd. In that case, the worker objected to the discipline imposed on her in relation to a number of performance issues, including: 

  • Breaching safety procedures by climbing on top of a water tank.
  • Slamming a refrigerator door.
  • Unsafely removing a splinter.
  • Not going home when she was unwell at work.
  • Acting inappropriately during an emergency response debrief.
  • Proving an incorrect response in relation to an eye treatment test.
  • Removing statistical information without authority and lying about it.
  • Being disrespectful to a colleague.  

Applying the reasonable person test, Commissioner Gregory found that the issues complained of were trivial, not worthy of discipline, and most importantly a reasonable person would not have responded with the same level of discipline in the same circumstances.

WHAT can we learn from this?

The reasonable person test has significant utility in the workplace context and it is important to remember that its application differs depending on the circumstances. 

For example, the response of a 'reasonable person' in a Chief Surgeon's position to any given situation is likely to differ substantially to that of an Assistant in Nursing. The question is: What would a reasonable Chief Surgeon in those circumstances have done? 

Similarly, higher standards of reasonable behaviour must necessarily be applied to those in more senior roles or with greater levels of responsibility. 

obtaining assistance with investigations 

When allegations of misconduct arise, the possibilities for distress to workers are extensive. 

If you are conducting an investigation, are unsure of what standard to apply, and are hoping to avoid a costly mistake, contact WISE today. We can conduct a full investigation or alternatively support your organisation in the investigation process.    

Dealing with Absconding Staff over Christmas

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, December 12, 2018

The Christmas period tends to bring out the best- and worst - in people. It is a time of year filled with parties, merriment, laughter, great weather and a lot of socialising. 

But Christmas can also be a challenging time in the workplace, as employees may engage in inappropriate conduct at work related social events, may suffer the after-effects of excessive partying or may be generally less productive or effective than usual. 

It can also result in staff not turning up altogether. We take a look at what employers should do if staff abscond from their roles over the end of year period.

Absenteeism, absconding and desertion: what's the difference? 

Many workers may be tempted to add to their public holidays by taking additional days off after Christmas, especially if they feel that they have been unfairly denied leave over the Festive Season. 

Workers 'pulling sickies' without consent is a type of absenteeism. In order to avoid situations where staff are calling in sick for less than legitimate reasons, employers should remind staff that the usual sick leave policies apply over Christmas. 

Employees must obtain doctor's certificates or other acceptable evidence of genuine illness, even though it may be an inconvenient time for them to do so. It should also be reiterated that failing to attend work after key social functions - such as the annual Christmas party - will be frowned upon and could result in disciplinary consequences. 

Unauthorised leave is a serious enough matter, but what happens if the absence drags on? An employee 'absconds' from work in circumstances where they have been absent, without explanation, for sufficiently long that the employer is entitled to infer that they have no intention of returning. This would apply if the employee has failed to attend for a number of days, without making contact with the employer (who has been unable to make contact in return). 

In cases of desertion, an employee implicitly or explicitly demonstrates that they have no intention of returning to work. Advising co-workers that they will not come back from leave, emptying their work station of personal belongings, and failing to respond to attempts to contact them are all signs of desertion.  

what steps should an employer take?

Although it is generally clear by implication that an employee has no intention of returning to work, employers must still follow due dismissal procedures to ensure that the employee is terminated correctly and fairly. 

This requires several documented attempts to contact the employee. Initial contact should be by phone, followed up by written correspondence notifying that the employee's position will be terminated if they do not explain their actions and return to work immediately. Written correspondence should be sent both to a personal email if possible, and the employee's registered postal address.

what the fair work commission says

A Fair Work Commission decision handed down in January 2018 noted that an employee's absence from work, without consent or notification, for three working days or more constituted sufficient evidence of abandonment. 

If an employee has not provided a satisfactory explanation for their absence within 14 days of their last attendance at work, an employee will be deemed to have formally abandoned their employment and their position will be considered to have been duly terminated. 

why do employees abscond?  

Although the reasons for employees absconding are many and varied, some examples are:

  • They have obtained employment elsewhere (and accordingly do not feel that they have any need for positive references);
  • They are dealing with personal issues which exceed their desire or ability to be present at work over the holiday period; 
  • They feel that they have engaged in particularly embarrassing or career limiting behaviours over the festive season. 

In particular, the Christmas period often makes people re-evaluate their life decisions and take stock of what they want (and don't want) in the New Year. Terminating a working situation that doesn't suit them, could potentially be at the top of their list. 

How to keep staff engaged and avoid staff going AWOL

Although most organisations strive to be an employer of choice throughout the year, it is important for staff to be reminded at the end of the year that they are valued, and their hard work has been appreciated. 

Celebrate the achievements of the past year, and if appropriate, reward staff with a festive bonus. Organisations should also strive to offer a fun, slightly more relaxed environment over the festive season. This might include offering extra snacks in staff common areas, and holding informal social events. This can carry over into the New Year, to help ease the way back into work. Another suggestion is to allow staff to dress casually in January and keep things fun with a holiday photo competition or barbecue lunch. 

Employers should approach the festive season proactively, reminding staff of the conduct expected of them, and the requirements around leave during this period. If your organisation encounters an issue with staff, WISE investigates matters of misconduct and can assist in establishing the facts. Contact us for an obligation-free investigation quote.  

Protecting Whistleblowers: Are You Ready for the Changes?

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, December 05, 2018

With new whistleblower protections to take effect in early 2019, it is essential that organisations understand the broad legislative changes to the Corporations Act 2001 due to be debated in Parliament. In addition to the requirement for formal mechanisms and strategies to protect and assist whistleblowers, both public and large private corporations will need to be able to 'spread the word' to staff in a practical way. 

Successfully embedding the changes to whistleblower protections into your organisation requires clear understanding, action and communication. With 2019 just around the corner, the time is right to ensure that you have all the information that you need to meet the new obligations.

WHat is the definition of a 'whistleblower'? 

Blowing a whistle has always been a common method for citizens to warn others of significant problems such as overcrowding, bad sportsmanship or dangerous waters. Whistleblowing has nevertheless developed some negative connotations in the corporate world. 

Despite the need to guard against corruption and corporate wrongdoing, corporations have in the past done little to actively protect those who speak up from being harmed. The new regime, due to be enacted in early 2019, includes compensation for any whistleblower who suffers statutorily-defined 'detriment'. 

No longer will the definition of whistle blower be restricted to current employees: past and present contractors, workers, suppliers, family members and many other stakeholders can rely upon the new protections.

who the changes apply to 

The proposed changes to the Corporations Act 2001 will effectively ensure that large employers provide the incentive, means and protection for individuals to blow the whistle when corporate wrongdoing is suspected. The changes formalise the legal protections that have been available in a relatively piecemeal manner across time. 

The new regime will mandate that all Australian public companies, large proprietary companies, and registerable superannuation entities will have compliant whistleblower policies in place by early 2019. Further, it will be necessary to demonstrate that stakeholders can safely and anonymously exercise their right to blow the whistle on corrupt practices. 

reach of the new bill

The demands on corporations flowing from the changes to whistleblower laws via the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistle-blower Protections) Bill 2017 can certainly seem daunting. As an example, the new Bill requires that corporations provide clear, comprehensive and anonymous pathways for any staff or stakeholders who wish to report suspected wrongdoing. 

This includes demonstrating that policies and procedures designed to promote and protect whistleblowing are accessible by all stakeholders. Further, access to an anonymous helpline is crucial to ensure that parties can talk freely about any suspicions of wrongdoing. 

The reach of the new Bill includes the ability to look at past corruption and in some cases to award damages to workers or others who have suffered detriment in the past as the result of blowing the whistle.

next steps? 

In the short time remaining between now and when the new whistleblower changes come into being, it is essential that all relevant organisations audit their current practices relevant to the new Bill. To assist our clients in understanding the proposed changes, we have published a white paper, which is available for free download. 

One core offering that we provide is our industry-leading Grapevine Confidential Whistleblower Hotline. Staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, Grapevine provides employees with the opportunity to make anonymous complaints to trusted and experienced operators. 

WISE has provided Grapevine since 2016, and the hotline enhances the way our clients manage their business, but also allows them be legally compliant with the new regulations. January 2019 is fast approaching. If you would like any additional information or an obligation free proposal, contact WISE today!