How to Take Action when Employees and Alcohol Mix

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Alcohol and workplaces never mix well. No matter the sort of work they do, employees should not be in the workplace when they are under the influence or still suffering the effects of alcohol consumption. This includes drinking at work or immediately before starting work, and those who are still impacted by a big night out. 

So what steps should an employer take when dealing with a worker who they suspect is intoxicated in the office?

approaching an intoxicated employee

Occupational health and safety legislation throughout Australia places an obligation on employers to protect not only the safety of the intoxicated employee, but that of all other employees as well. 

This means making sure that an intoxicated employee can't hurt themselves or anyone else. Accordingly, employers have an obligation to approach intoxicated employees and ask them to leave work immediately (without driving a vehicle, of course!). 

However, being intoxicated at work does not necessarily mean that employees can be terminated immediately. When determining whether a dismissal for intoxication in the workplace is 'valid' or can be upheld, courts will consider several factors. These include whether the company's drug and alcohol policy or any contractual arrangements in place with the employee are sufficiently clear to demonstrate that there is a 'zero tolerance' policy for alcohol in the workplace. 

Although employees should certainly be disciplined for being intoxicated at work, employers who are wishing to avoid claims for unfair dismissal should consider interim steps such as clearly worded warnings rather than summarily dismissing staff.

factors that may contribute to alcohol abuse

Of course, prevention is always better than cure. Employers should give some thought to factors that may encourage their staff to over-indulge in alcohol to the extent that they are intoxicated in the workplace. 

Key risk factors include:

  • Age, gender and socio-economics. According to the Alcohol.Think Again campaign, young men who work in lower skilled or manual occupations are statistically most likely to be involved in 'risky drinking'.
  • Isolation (geographical isolation or social isolation within work peer groups)
  • Bullying, harassment and other interpersonal difficulties
  • Poor supervision, or support in the workplace
  • Difficult working conditions
  • High levels of stress 

How alcohol use can impact the workplace

An intoxicated employee can pose a risk to the safety of themselves and others. This is magnified when the employee is in a customer-facing role, or they are required to do manual work involving precision or machinery. 

Regardless of the nature of the work however, job performance can suffer as a result of the poor concentration and low productivity that will likely result from intoxication.

Steps to address alcohol use in the workplace

In addition to mitigating workplace risk factors, employers should ensure that they have clear and detailed drug and alcohol policies which identify under what conditions an employee would be determined to be 'intoxicated'. Policies should also clearly spell out the consequences of breaching those conditions. 

Employers must ensure that any breaches of the policy are thoroughly and objectively investigated, and any required disciplinary action is taken swiftly. 

If you would like to know more about risk management and creating effective drug and alcohol policies, or you require assistance with investigating an incident involving an intoxicated employee, contact WISE today.

The Legality of Recording Conversations

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, March 20, 2019

How many times have you wished you had a record of a conversation? Perhaps you would have liked evidence of what was said, or you would have appreciated being able to play a conversation back for training purposes. 

Whatever the reason, we examine the legality of recording conversations in Australia. 

when can you record a conversation?

The legality of recording a conversation in Australia depends entirely on the jurisdiction. Each state and territory has separate legislation which sets out the law on surveillance and listening devices. 

Residents of Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory may be concerned to learn that there is no legislation prohibiting the recording of a private conversation (as long as the person recording is involved in that conversation). By contrast, recording conversations without permission of all parties is prohibited in New South Wales, Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. 

Regardless of the jurisdiction, there is a prohibition on persons who are not party to a conversation, secretly recording or using a device to listen in on a conversation (with the exception of law enforcement). The obvious example here would be listening or recording devices being covertly installed in hotel rooms. 

what about recordings in the workplace? 

Conversations in the workplace come under the same legislation, which means whether or not it is legal to make a recording depends on jurisdiction. Covert recordings are against the law in New South Wales, Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. But employers in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory are permitted to record termination conversations, for example, without advising the employee that they are doing so. This recording can then be used to demonstrate that the employee was afforded due process prior to their termination. 

It is also legal for an employee in these states to record a conversation they are having with a colleague. However, it is important to note that, even though the recording of such a conversation may not necessarily be a criminal act, it is certainly frowned upon in the workplace. 

This was highlighted in the Fair Work Commission decision of Tawanda Gadzikwa v Australian Government Department of Human Services [2018] FWC 4878

In that decision, Mr Gadzikwa took a period of unpaid sick leave arising from a mental health condition. After a certain time, that leave was deemed to be unauthorised, and he was ultimately dismissed for non-performance of duties. 

During the course of the hearings, Mr Gadzikwa (who worked in Victoria) admitted that he had developed a practice of secretly recording conversations with his colleagues. While it is relevant that this practice did not form part of the employer's motivation in terminating Mr Gadzikwa's employment, the employer did submit that this was an inappropriate practice, regardless of Mr Gadzikwa's contention that he recorded conversations 'to protect himself'. 

Deputy President Colman criticised Mr Gadzikwa for his actions in doing so, noting that secret recordings are 'unfair to those who are being secretly recorded'. Ultimately, in the absence of any decent justification for recording the conversations, Deputy President Colman determined that Mr Gadzikwa's actions in doing so effectively diluted points in his favour which would have suggested that he had been inappropriately terminated.

covert recordings inadvisable at work

The warning contained in this decision is clear: everybody in the workplace, whether employer or employee, should be aware that even if it is not illegal to secretly record colleagues, bosses, or staff members, it is considered inappropriate, and may have negative ramifications in any dismissal or similar proceedings. If an individual has formed the view that a recording of a conversation is appropriate and necessary, the other participants should be advised in advance that the conversation is to be recorded, so that any objections can be voiced. 

WISE Workplace is highly experienced at conducting investigations into allegations of workplace misconduct and the surrounding legal issues. If you are looking for assistance to help navigate the challenging and complex issues of workplace misconduct, contact WISE today.

Gender Equality: How to Create a Win-Win in the Workplace

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, March 13, 2019

It can seem unbelievable that gender inequality persists in Australian workplaces in 2019. As well as the obvious human rights issues, some employers and managers fail to comprehend that a lack of gender equality can have measurable negative consequences for the organisation as a whole. 

Let's examine some of the alarming statistics around the situation for women in the workplace, the benefits of championing gender equality, and some of the more positive approaches that can be taken by organisations to create a win-win situation.

inequality - some sobering statistics

To fully understand gender inequality in Australian workplaces, it can help to absorb some of the bald statistics. Women across the Australian workforce are paid 15.3% less than men for equivalent work, and accumulate less than half the superannuation. They have a 50% chance of experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace, and the same odds of experiencing discrimination on the basis of being a parent! 

Barriers to gender equality in the workplace can be both subtle and not-so-subtle. Positional bias and diminished responsibility stem from the idea that only one gender or the other is 'right' for a job, such as reception work or heavy lifting. Subtler barriers see women being asked about family issues at job interviews - and yet not men. 

Other barriers include a lack of targeted support to help women overcome the promotional glass ceiling. For example, if the ability to act in higher positions, attend training or to network with stakeholders is not made sufficiently flexible for women in the workplace, then that glass ceiling will undoubtedly stay firmly in place.

WHy it's vital to rectify workplace gender inequality 

As indicated, these practices of gender inequality are deeply unacceptable on human rights grounds alone. Yet there is also a strong business case to be made for rectifying this situation and making gender equality a key component of business-as-usual. 

Firstly, fostering a level playing field in the workplace creates a sense of certainty and loyalty among all staff. The subsequent improvement in staff retention reduces the costs and inconvenience of rehiring and retraining. It also creates a more harmonious corporate environment due to reduced staffing changes. 

And - as if these benefits to business weren't enough - workplace gender equality enables longitudinal corporate knowledge to be more easily captured and retained. 

devEloping a high-quality business reputation

Reputational benefits also flow to those organisations that actively embrace equality for women in the workplace. For example, the prestigious Employer of Choice Awards in Australia recognises and promotes businesses that demonstrate practical gains in workplace gender equality. Reputational gains lead to the attraction and retention of high quality staff. 

fostering gender equality in your workplace

Many organisations have the best of intentions when it comes to improving gender equality. However sometimes it can be challenging to know where to start. A workplace audit of current equality initiatives can help to pinpoint any gaps - particularly between lip service and actual practice. From here, robust policies for parental leave and support, career assistance and flexible work arrangements can form an excellent base for the improvement of workplace gender equality on the ground. 

A strong framework for workplace gender equality

Being a leader in workplace gender equality brings considerable gains in employee satisfaction, reputation and the bottom line. It also works to lessen the chances of expensive claims being made on the basis of alleged gender discrimination. 

At WISE Workplace, we pride ourselves on the assistance that we provide to employers in their pursuit of excellence. We have the experience and governance expertise to help organisations remedy risks and work towards excellence in workplace gender equality. Get in touch if you would like to discuss the best ways to create equality in the workplace for women - and indeed for all employees.

Signed Statements vs Affidavits in Workplace Investigations

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, March 06, 2019

When conducting a workplace investigation, it is important that supporting evidence is collected in order to ensure that any decisions can be backed up, particularly in the event of legal proceedings.

We examine the merits of recording evidence in a signed statement versus an affidavit.

WHAt is a signed statement?  

The nature of a signed statement is fairly self-explanatory: this is a document where somebody records information they wish to present.

Unlike an affidavit, it does not necessarily need to be witnessed. If a witness is required, any adult can sign.

Statements are much less rigid documents than affidavits. As such, there are no requirements around the content or the format and the rules of evidence do not apply.

What is an affidavit?

In contrast, an affidavit is a legally recognised document which is considered to be 'sworn' evidence. If the deponent (the person providing the affidavit) does not wish to swear on a Bible or other religious text, an affidavit can be 'affirmed' in a secular fashion.

The signature on an affidavit must be witnessed, and that witness must be authorised to take affidavits. This is usually a qualified Justice of the Peace, or a solicitor or barrister.

Affidavits should only contain statements of fact rather than opinion, and information which the deponent is able to confirm of their own knowledge. For example, a deponent cannot say "I know that Billy swore at Jessica because Cynthia told me".  

The value of statement evidence vs affidavit evidence

Generally, a court or tribunal will make an order or direction as to whether a written statement is sufficient or affidavit evidence is required.

A written statement is usually enough in less serious circumstances. Written statements provide a helpful guide for a court or tribunal to determine what has occurred. But they are informative rather than being considered reliable evidence. This is because there are effectively no penalties for dishonesty in a written statement. If the statement is signed, however, you can challenge the credibility of the witness who gives evidence inconsistent with the contents of their signed statement. 

In contrast, an affidavit is a written version of verbal evidence. This means that providing false evidence in an affidavit is to all intent and purposes lying under oath, which could result in perjury charges being laid.

Should professional assistance be enlisted?

Writing affidavits can be a complicated process, and there is a risk that a court will refuse to allow some or all of the evidence contained in  an incorrectly drafted one. As noted, the consequences of giving false evidence in an affidavit are potentially very serious, and it is essential that anybody who has been asked to provide affidavit evidence is fully aware of the ramifications.

While there are resources that can help in drafting affidavits, professional assistance may be required, particularly if the investigation could potentially result in litigation or police intervention.

At WISE, our experienced team can assist you in conducting an unbiased and rigorous workplace investigation, including advising on whether witness statements will be sufficient or affidavit evidence will likely be required.

Bringing an Employee Back from Suspension

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, February 27, 2019

It can seem as though the difficult part of a workplace investigation is dealt with by undergoing the investigative process, and making a decision as to how to deal with the employee. But the aftermath of an investigation, for example bringing an employee back into the workplace fold after a suspension, can be equally difficult. 

We examine what an employer should know, and do, in such a situation.

what is a suspension?  

Employers have the power to suspend staff from their usual workplace duties while an investigation is being conducted into their alleged behaviour or actions. 

Employers need to be certain that they are acting in accordance with the terms of the employee's contract, and any internal policies setting guidelines for performance management via suspension. The same suspension criteria must apply for all staff, and the decision to suspend made only after a thorough risk assessment.

how long can a suspension last?

Workers should only be suspended for as long as is required to undertake the investigation, which should be undertaken as expeditiously as the circumstances allow. 

For this reason, employees may often be suspended with pay, unless the alleged behaviour is sufficiently serious that it would warrant summary dismissal. Even in those cases where an employee is stood down, an employee must be given the opportunity to make submissions as to whether they would be caused undue financial hardship by being suspended without pay. 

Depending on the nature of the alleged conduct, staff may be asked not to contact the suspended employee. This is particularly the case where there have been allegations of violence or threats to harm co-workers. 

how employers can ease the employee's return to work

When a suspension period has ended and an employee has been cleared of wrongdoing or an appropriate penalty has been determined, there are several things both employer and employee can do to ensure a smooth transition back to the workplace. 

From the employer's perspective, in addition to ensuring that there has been clear and documented communication at each step of the process, it is important that the employee feels that they have been genuinely welcomed back to work. This could include arranging a return-to-work meeting on the first day back, or as early as possible, to provide an opportunity to discuss and resolve any concerns. 

At the same time, employers may wish to use the opportunity to obtain more information about the behaviour that led to the initial suspension, for example by conducting workplace culture surveys and participating in regular open dialogue with the returned employee.

In particular, the employee should be offered support on an ongoing basis. This might include a referral to an employee assistance program, the option to participate in a mentoring process with a third party, or other invitations to access support.

the role of the employee

Employees also have a role to play in easing the transition, by: 

  • Having ongoing and clear communication with the employer, both throughout the suspension process and immediately before returning to work. This will assist in clarifying the employer's expectations for the employee. 
  • Avoiding future allegations - the employee should take all steps possible to avoid being alone or in any difficult situation with the person who made the original allegation.
  • Showing remorse where appropriate and complying with restrictions or other terms imposed by the employer (even if the employee doesn't necessarily agree). 

Managing grievances in the workplace can be tricky. If you are unsure of your obligations as an employer, contact WISE Workplace for specialist advice

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.