Substantive, Not Superficial: A Call to Improved Procedural Fairness

Natasha Kennedy-Read and Vince Scopelliti - Tuesday, March 17, 2020

The FWC recently found SA CARE’s dismissal of a casual disability care worker to be unfair and ordered compensation.

The employee in question was warned off tube-feeding clients due to her lack of certification. In response, she advised that she had been signed off on two appropriate training courses, had experience providing gastronomic care at another facility and had been approved by Disability SA. She believed she had been approved to provide that care.

Two days later, the employee was called without warning into a disciplinary meeting with HR where her lack of certification and other qualifications were discussed again.

The HR officer stepped out of the disciplinary meeting for five minutes.

On return, the officer handed the employee a summary dismissal letter which recorded that the employee had received an opportunity to respond to a serious misconduct allegation. the letter terminated her employment with immediate effect.

FWC’s Deputy President Anderson stated the “shocked” care worker was then “escorted off the premises in the knowledge and view of clients and staff, causing them further distress.”

FWC Findings

Ordinarily, an employee performing a medical procedure on a client, knowing they lacked the required certification would justify summary dismissal. Anderson acknowledges the care worker’s assumptions can be reasonably criticised, but also found that the “unique circumstances of this matter” with factors that significantly “mitigate the seriousness of the conduct.”

Anderson found the lack of notice and the timing of only 48 hours between the instruction and the disciplinary procedure to be harsh and unfair. The process also had only superficial procedural fairness, since the employee’s ability to respond was limited and she was not fully warned of the risks to her employment or afforded the right to support during the process.  Anderson also found that the urgent treatment of the matter was unnecessary. 

Anderson awarded the care worker four weeks compensation minus 25% for misconduct with SA CARE paying over $5830.74 in compensation. If you would like to read more about this case, please see: Chioma Okoye v SACARE Supported Acomodation and Care Services T/A SACARE [2020] FWC 704 (12 February 2020).

what can we learn from this case? 

Matters involving dismissal must be handled with utmost sensitivity, caution and procedural fairness even in matters of perceived urgency. There is often grey area in matters of misconduct that may seem black and white. To ensure you are best informed and equipped to handle these challenging circumstances, WISE offer expert third party HR services including training, investigations and reviews.

How Fact-Finding and Disciplinary Investigations Differ

Vince Scopelliti - Tuesday, February 25, 2020

When dealing with allegations of staff misconduct, employers must be able to clearly delineate between fact-finding and disciplinary investigations. 

This includes communicating the difference to staff involved in the process.

fact-finding vs formal investigation

A 'fact-finding' process is often a necessary preliminary step in determining whether a disciplinary investigation is warranted. Following an incident or complaint, a third-party must interview involved parties to obtain objective information and determine whether the event merits a more detailed investigation.

Alternatively, the results may be sufficient to establish that there was no misconduct, or that the results of any further investigation are unlikely to provide any clear determination. Fact-finding may initially be a fairly informal process, although it should still be clearly documented.

It is extremely important that staff are made aware that a fact-finding process is simply that - not accusatory but only to gather information. This should be clearly spelled out in the organisation's policies and procedures, which staff participating in the process should be pointed towards.

By contrast, once an investigation has commenced, the process becomes much more detailed and formal. This includes the preparation of specific witness statements, collection of detailed information and supporting evidence, and the preparation of a report. That report will be relied upon by management and other decision-makers in determining the consequences following an investigation.

Disciplinary investigations are formal processes that involve specific allegations being put to employees. They are surrounded by confidentiality obligations, and are intended to determine whether an incident was a breach of policy which warrants disciplinary action, and not whether an incident actually occurred.

It is important to bear in mind that the point of a disciplinary investigation is to protect the rights of an individual subject to potential disciplinary proceedings.

communicating the process to the employees involved

Parties engaged in a fact-finding process should be advised clearly why they are involved.

Although it is an informal process, staff should be told that they are being interviewed to outline and assess matters of concern before management can determine a course of further action.

The purpose of the meeting should also be clearly outlined, as well as its status as part of a preliminary assessment or a potential precursor to a formal investigation. However, although the general nature of the query needs to be raised, there is no need for specific information to be divulged.

Before potential respondents are interviewed during the fact-finding process, management should give serious consideration to whether it is essential to do so. If it really is required, the potential respondent must be told that the next steps could involve moving to a formal investigative process and potentially the issue of misconduct allegations which will require a formal response.

what happens when the line becomes blurred

At any point when fact-finding starts getting too close to asking specific questions related to the subject nature of any potential complaint, it is straying towards an informal disciplinary investigation.

This is rife with potential implications for the business, particularly if formal disciplinary processes are commenced as a result. The rights of the accused employee are at risk, and any conduct endorsed by the business could result in unfair dismissal or similar actions by the employee. At this stage, it is recommended that a business involve the services of a formal, external investigator to finalise the process.

If you want to protect your business, draw a real distinction between fact-finding and disciplinary investigations. This can be achieved by using an external provider for all disciplinary proceedings. WISE Workplace offers independent, unbiased and expert third-party investigation services to support you every step of the way - from unpacking the facts of a workplace problem to analysing all sources of evidence raised in relation to misconduct. 

How to Navigate Counter Allegations in Investigations

Natasha Kennedy-Read and Vince Scopelliti - Friday, February 14, 2020

It is not unusual when investigating allegations such as sexual harassment, bullying or theft for the person accused of the misconduct to make a counter allegation.

This in turn can generate further counter allegations, making it difficult for investigators to keep track of a growing litany of wrongdoings!

Steering through the sea of counter allegations means handling each complaint separately, being mindful of procedural fairness and adhering to the civil standard of proof. 

Divide ALLEGATIONS into separate incidents

It is important not to conflate cause and effect when it comes to counter allegations. If the allegation is that person A slapped person B, who, according to A, retaliated by stealing A’s smartphone, these two allegations must be investigated separately.

It may be that that person B had nothing to do with the smartphone’s disappearance, or the slap never happened. 

By looking at them as two unrelated incidents, investigators will not ‘miss’ important evidence, such as A accidentally leaving their phone in a meeting room.

keep procedural fairness top of mind 

The smartphone theft/disappearance may only come up when B is being investigated for the alleged slap. The alleged wrongdoer makes the counter claim in an interview that was up to that point unknown.

In effect, this means there are two allegations under investigation. Depending on the circumstances, this new information may require the interview to be suspended while further inquiries are made by the investigator. 

While it may be tempting to view the counter allegation as 'tit for tat' failing to investigate this new complaint could be viewed by a court or tribunal as a denial of procedural fairness by the employer.

Many unfair dismissal claims are successful because the employer in question failed to afford procedural fairness to the alleged wrongdoer.

The civil standard of proof

While investigating allegations and counter allegations, compartmentalising each alleged incident, its timings and events ensures impartiality and clarity.

This means taking care with unwitnessed and testimonial evidence (hearsay). Vivid descriptions of events may sometimes be compelling yet have no bearing on actual events. Finding an impartial witness to an event can short-circuit this problem, but it can be difficult. Just because person C saw B running from the bathroom crying does not mean the cause was a slap from A. 

Investigators should apply the civil standard of proof when assessing evidence. This means that for an allegation to be substantiated, the evidence must establish that it is more probable than not that the incident occurred.

The strength of evidence necessary to establish an allegation on the balance of probabilities may vary according to the: 

  • Relevance of the evidence to the allegations. 
  • Seriousness of the allegations.
  • Inherent probability of an event occurring.
  • Gravity of the consequences flowing from a finding.
  • The likelihood that the required standard of proof will be obtained.

Employers and management must at all times remain unbiased. Just because a counter allegation is made during an investigation does not mean it lacks substance. It may be that the counter allegation carries more weight and is of a more serious nature than the initial claim.

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, as well as formal qualifications such as Certificate IV and Diploma in Government Investigations.



Managing Misconduct over the Holidays

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, December 18, 2019

The festive season is fraught with concern for employers. With many staff on leave and those who remain letting their proverbial hair down (often with a beverage or three!) the holiday period can be a minefield.

We take a look at when employees are still considered to be "at work", define misconduct and provide some tips for dealing with poor behaviour in the workplace over the holidays. 

When are employees still 'at work'?

A workplace is where people perform their jobs, undertaking their contracted hours of work. However, a work function held outside the office and outside regular business hours, is considered to be an extension of the workplace.

A general rule of thumb is, that if an event is organised and paid for by an employer, it's officially sanctioned. Liability therefore remains with the employer for any misconduct that occurs. This is likely to be the case, regardless of how many pre-event warnings have been issued to staff, and how many times staff have been reminded of the applicable policies and codes of conduct.

It is also important to keep in mind that employers may bear third party liability, to family members who attend a staff Christmas party, functions held in public venues (where people other than staff could get injured) and in circumstances where a worker causes injury to another person, when leaving an event in a state of intoxication.

defining misconduct in the workplace

Misconduct over the holiday period generally refers to inappropriate behaviour such as discrimination, workplace harassment and bullying, or sexual harassment. This type of behaviour is often associated with the Christmas party, where people have consumed alcohol and have lowered inhibitions.

It is important for employers to remember that the definition of sexual harassment, for example, includes but is not limited to, conduct of a sexual nature which is offensive, humiliating or embarrassing to the person complaining of the behaviour. Crucially, it is irrelevant if the behaviour was intended to offend - it is the opinion of the "victim" and not the "perpetrator" which is relevant.

Other types of misconduct include staff pulling "sickies" due to hangovers, or poor behaviour such as sharing inappropriate stories or having general disagreements between co-workers boil over.  

why is there a prevalence of misconduct over the holidays?

As noted, there is often an increased incidence of misconduct in circumstances where staff are consuming (potentially excessive) amounts of alcohol and otherwise lowering inhibitions.

There is also a general misapprehension amongst employees to the effect that a Christmas party is not considered to be related to employment - which is not the case.

This is part of the reason why employers should also give serious consideration as to whether they wish to gift alcohol, either to their staff or to clients or business associates. While alcohol is a convenient and often appreciated gift, it can create an impression that an employer is not concerned about responsible service of alcohol.

mitigating the risk of misconduct

There are numerous ways that employers can mitigate the risk of misconduct during the holidays. 

Before a function, employers should take steps to remind staff (generally via an email) that it is to be treated as a workplace event, and therefore the usual policies and procedures remain in place. It is also timely to recirculate documents such as code of conduct, sexual harassment or bullying policies and procedures.

During the work function, employers should consider ensuring that at least one (if not more) senior personnel are in a position to remind staff who have over-consumed alcohol, that they should stop drinking and/or perhaps even leave the event.

Similarly, companies should ensure that there are sufficient taxi vouchers or other safe methods of transport home, for all employees who want them. This ensures that the business cannot be responsible for any employees who injure themselves and/or others on the way from the party.

If allegations of misconduct do arise from a Christmas function, employers must ensure that due process and fair procedures are implemented. This includes taking into account the fact that staff may be on leave or have applied to be on leave.

Although the investigative process should not be unnecessarily drawn out, staff who have pre-booked leave, should not be prejudiced by the fact that they are unavailable at that time of year. They should have the same opportunity to prepare a response to allegations as at any other time of year.

Managing staff and keeping in touch with staff over a quieter holiday period can be a challenge. If you need assistance reviewing and managing staff behaviour in your workplace, WISE Workplace provides expert external investigation services to meet your needs. 

Responding to Bad Behaviour at the Christmas Party

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, November 27, 2019

It's no secret that both the good and the bad can be on display at the annual work Christmas party. While smiles and good cheer can and should be the main features at an end-of-year bash, some unfortunate behaviour can also arise. 

Alcohol abuse, sexual harassment and aggressive behaviour are just some of the less savoury possibilities. But despite the instinct to punish personnel who wander astray, it is vital that employers respond to Christmas misbehaviour in a manner which is both reasonable and proportionate.

Alcohol abuse/intoxication

For many workers and business owners, the idea of a Christmas party with zero alcohol is a rather bleak one. Secret Santa, sausage rolls and a few cool beverages tend to be part of the workplace festive tradition. Yet the results of intoxication at the work Christmas party are the stuff of unfortunate legend. Raised voices, wild dancing, lewd comments, recriminations and unwanted advances are just some of the potential products of the wrong mix of drinks.

Moderation is everything when it comes to the supply of alcohol at the end-of-year event. Plenty of forewarning to staff about rules and refreshments will also help to keep proceedings on an even keel.

sexual harassment

The well-known reduction of inhibitions caused by alcohol consumption can lead to one of the more serious Christmas party side-effects: sexual harassment. The working year is over, the relief is palpable and perhaps a perceived flirtation is taken in an unacceptable direction. Behaviour that would certainly be shunned in the ordinary workplace can seem 'up for grabs' in the glittery glow of the Christmas party lights.

Alcohol can of course be part of the unacceptable sexual harassment situation: yet sometimes just the high spirits of the Christmas party itself can lead to an array of unacceptable approaches and behaviours.

Aggressive behaviour 

As with misconceived flirtation, the office Christmas party can bring out the worst forms of aggressive behaviour. Personal tensions can simmer during the year, with the relief of the office party creating an unleashing of built-up emotion. Add alcohol to the mix, and there is a strong possibility that arguments, fights and even assaults will emerge.

Case study - keeping things proportionate 

The case of Keenan v Leighton Boral NSW Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 3156 reflects the need to act swiftly in response to Christmas party problems - yet to do so in a fair and measured way.

In this case, the Fair Work Commission was faced with the troubling situation of an employee becoming intoxicated and proceeding to swear, abuse and provide unwanted advances through the night. He was dismissed. However, the worker's excellent work record, combined with the employer's dubious provision of free-flowing alcohol, saw Keenan's dismissal overturned by the FWC.

In particular, it was noted that any disciplinary action needed to be reasonable and proportionate to the condemned behaviour. The limitless alcohol situation certainly did little to assist the employer's case. And while the employee's drunken behaviour was a nightmare of ill-conceived comments, actions and insults, the FWC noted that his long and notable record of service required the employer to be reasonable in response.

It is certainly a cautionary tale to employers supplying alcohol at Christmas parties. If no limits are placed upon the type and volume of alcohol consumed by workers across time, then a large part of the fault in such cases will no doubt be seen to rest with employers.

managing the christmas party risks 

When it comes to organising the annual Christmas party, it pays for employers to plan the event well in advance. All employees should be aware of the order of proceedings, times and expectations at the party. Employers should plan food and alcohol extremely well, working out how the judicious service of alcohol will be managed through the night.

Providing security staff on the night can also be an excellent way to keep emotions and good cheer under some sort of control!

The Keenan case certainly demonstrates the importance of undertaking a thorough and considered investigation before taking serious disciplinary action against an employee. In unfair dismissal claims, the Commission will not hesitate to find in favour of the applicant where the employer failed to apply proportionate disciplinary action. If you would like to ensure your investigation process is considered and enforceable, WISE provides full and supported investigation services, as well as investigation training for your staff. 

Audio Recording or Written Statements?

Vince Scopelliti - Thursday, November 07, 2019

Appropriately recording evidence is a crucial part of workplace investigations.

For investigators, this can cause a significant dilemma as to whether it is preferable to rely on written statements, or obtain audio recordings of interviews conducted during the investigation.

Here are a few of the main considerations for each method.

Audio recordings 

An audio recording is effectively a verbatim record of everything that is said during the interview process. It may be particularly useful to conduct audio recordings during initial witness or party interviews, so that these can be transcribed and used to confirm the evidence which has been gathered.

It is essential that all parties are made aware that interviews will be recorded. This should also assist in setting expectations that nothing said during the interview can be considered "off the record".

Significant advantages of audio recordings include:

  • Simplicity. It is easier for the investigator to conduct an interview without having to take contemporaneous notes. The practice of taking notes can be disruptive to the interview process, breaking both the interviewer's and the interviewee's concentration and the "flow" of the conversation.
  • Creation of an accurate record. Written statements may be considered to be ambiguous or open to interpretation - however an audio recording is fairly difficult to refute.
  • Reinforcing significance of the process. If an audio recording is produced, involved parties can be left in no doubt that an investigation is being taken seriously.
  • Flexibility. If it is difficult to arrange for a party to be interviewed in person, modern technology means that interviews can be recorded by telephone or video. This introduces greater flexibility into the recording process.
It is important to remember however, that it can be easier to contest what is recorded in a transcript, rather than in a written statement which the interviewee has been asked to sign.

written statements

By contrast, a written statement is a document which is produced as a summary of the contents of the interview. Generally, it is produced after the interview, based on notes taken by the interviewer or an offsider. 

Although it is extremely unlikely that every word said or every implied nuance during the interview will be recorded in a written statement, a key advantage of this type of evidence gathering is that witnesses will have the opportunity to review their written statement. The interviewed party can then sign the statement, or refute the contents.

In order to be effective, the statement should be produced as soon as possible after the interview has concluded, while it is still fresh in everybody's memory.

procedural requirements for interviews 

When determining whether an interview should be supported by a written statement or an audio recording, it is important to bear in mind that certain organisations or agencies have policy and/or procedural requirements preferring one method of evidence collection over the other. Further, in the event that a witness prefers not to have the interview recorded, an investigator cannot rely on this method.

The interviewer should give thought both to the personality of the interviewee, and the subject matter of the interview, when determining the best method. If it is intended that the interview proceed on a casual or somewhat informal basis, relying on a recording is likely to be considered overkill.

Audio recording is also reliant on technology functioning properly. In the event that a recording device malfunctions or does not record properly, there is a risk that the interview will not have been recorded at all. This could mean that the entire process needs to occur again - or alternatively, that there is no evidence supporting the interviewing process.

THe importance of flexibility in investigations

Unless company policy dictates one method of evidence collection over the other, this is always a decision that should be made based on individual circumstances.

As is generally the case in workplace investigations, there is never a "one size fits all" approach that can be utilised on every occasion. Investigators must be prepared to make an assessment on which method of evidence collection is appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

WISE investigators have extensive experience in conducting investigative interviews and collecting evidence, whether by audio recording or written statement. If you require established procedures to be followed or would like flexibility during the investigation process, WISE offers investigation services to assist. Additionally, if your organisation is seeking advice and training on interview techniques, WISE offers short courses and resources to upskill your staff.

When a Pre-Determined View Leads to an Unfair Investigation

Vince Scopelliti - Thursday, October 31, 2019

Procedural fairness must be top of mind, for all organisations when conducting a workplace investigation. Failing to allow an employee sufficient time to respond to an allegation or taking a pre-determined view of the outcome of an investigation, for example, proceeding with terminating employment, can leave an employer open to an unfair dismissal claim. 

The importance of observing all elements of procedural fairness when conducting a workplace investigation is highlighted in the Fair Work Commission decision of Mark Andrawos v MyBudget Pty Ltd (U2018/2379). 

the facts of the matter 

The applicant, Mr Andrawos, commenced employment at MyBudget in July 2016. He came to his role, ultimately as a personal budget specialist, with a significant financial industry background, and was supported by tertiary qualifications. During his employment, he received numerous compliments, but was also informally and formally counselled for behaviour including "corner cutting", lateness and a failure to follow procedures correctly.

Mr Andrawos received a total of twelve informal warnings and eventually three written warnings for a variety of misdemeanours, including inappropriate comments made to a female client, resulting in a final written warning being issued. Despite having received the final warning, Mr Andrawos was subsequently involved in two further disciplinary processes. The first regarding his punctuality and the second related to inappropriate conduct with a female colleague.

Mr Andrawos then formed a friendship with a young man, Mr McBryde-Martin, which ultimately led to him providing financial recommendations as to what Mr McBryde-Martin should do with a sizeable inheritance he had received. Eventually, Mr Andrawos suggested that his friend come to MyBudget as a client, on a "friends and family" discount. Mr McBryde-Martin subsequently received financial advice and recommendations.

At one point, Mr Andrawos suggested that Mr McBryde-Martin transfer some $90,000 into a MyBudget account and offered to act as co-signatory. This upset Mr McBryde-Martin's mother (against a background where there was, although ultimately unfounded, some suggestion that Mr Andrawos had been drinking and gambling with Mr McBryde-Martin). His mother complained to MyBudget and Mr Andrawos was immediately escorted from the building and suspended. After some investigation, Mr Andrawos was dismissed from his employment. 

THE need for procedural fairness

The Fair Work Commission considered that Mr Andrawos' suspension and ultimately termination had occurred without sufficient procedural fairness.

Specifically, it was concluded, that he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the necessary response and context to his employer.

Evidence supporting this conclusion included the fact that Mr Andrawos was initially given less than 24 hours to prepare a response to the allegation letter he had been issued.

Further, despite requesting statements provided by his colleagues, Mr Andrawos was denied access to this information and to the telephone call recordings with Mr McBryde-Martin, and the screenshots of text messages, which were being relied on by MyBudget as evidence in the disciplinary proceedings.

Taking a pre-determined view 

The Fair Work Commission was critical of the fact that there was evidence supporting the finding that a pre-determination had been made by the employer, before the investigative process has occurred. It was particularly noted that the employer appeared to be prepared to only undertake an investigation in form and not in substance - that is, that the employer had already decided to terminate Mr Andrawos. It was also held that Mr Andrawos was also prevented from putting forward his "defence" to his managers at an early stage, which reinforced the conclusion of the existence of a pre-determined outcome.

The evidence put forward to the Fair Work Commission suggested that a key decision-maker at MyBudget, had not been briefed with all relevant information prior to conducting a fact-finding interview, again critical in supporting a conclusion that a pre-determination had already been made. Moreover, no additional enquiries were made after the conclusion of the fact-finding process, most notably that no attempts were made by the employer to speak with Mr McBryde-Martin, regarding the nature of his mother's allegations. 

THE need for separation between investigator and decision-maker

The fact that the investigation was conducted internally at MyBudget by two people who ultimately were also the key decision-makers in the termination process, was criticised by the Fair Work Commission. This perceived conflict of interest tainted the investigation process and the termination decision and was directly related to the conclusion that, while Mr Andrawos' dismissal was neither unreasonable or unjust, it was deemed to be harsh. This highlights the importance of an investigative team, whether internal or external, collecting information and material on an objective basis, before providing it to the ultimate decision-makers for a determination.

This case demonstrates the importance of observing the elements of procedural fairness when investigating workplace matters. A former employee will likely be successful in an unfair dismissal claim, where an employer has entered the investigation process with a pre-determined view of the outcome. To assist your organisation with following a fair and reliable investigation process, WISE offers both training services and external investigation services

Outsourcing or In-House Investigations?

Vince Scopelliti - Thursday, October 03, 2019

For many businesses, one of the critical HR questions is whether investigations into alleged employee misconduct or misbehaviour should be outsourced or conducted in-house.

Depending on the nature of the business and the complaint, it may not always be appropriate or cost-effective for investigations to be referred externally.

However, in other circumstances, particularly when the allegations involve potential criminal conduct or there is an actual or perceived conflict, outsourcing may be the best option.

We examine the different circumstances in which investigations might best be outsourced or kept in-house.

outsourcing vs internal 

The key benefit of conducting workplace investigations internally is the ability to potentially deal with a matter swiftly and cost-effectively. The obvious reason here is that staff tasked with conducting an internal investigation, already have an understanding of the internal processes and procedures of the business. Although time away from normal duties is likely to be required, there is no additional cost associated with tasking existing staff to conduct an internal investigation.

On the other hand, depending on the nature of the allegation, existing staff may be lacking in capacity or capability to properly conduct the investigation. This is particularly likely to be the case if the allegations relate to potential criminal conduct which requires police involvement.

In addition, if the allegations are sensitive or have been made against a staff member who would ordinarily be involved in conducting the investigation, it may not be appropriate for the investigation to occur internally.

Whether the investigation is outsourced or conducted internally, it is essential that there are clear delineations as to who will be conducting the investigation. Further, the ultimate investigator must be provided with the applicable investigation policy and procedures which must be followed.

risks of handling an investigation in-house

As noted, there are numerous potential risks of handling an investigation in-house. Chief amongst these is the fact that the internal staff may lack the necessary skills or training to adequately understand the complex nature of the investigation. This could have significant ramifications if there are demonstrable gaps in the process, as this may ultimately invalidate the findings and any final decision which is made.

Having staff without the requisite experience or skills, conducting an investigation may also mean a failure to comply with legal obligations. In the event that the investigatory process results in termination of employment, litigation or other legal action, any failure to duly comply with all the legal and regulatory requirements, may potentially result in an adverse decision for the company.

The possible apprehension of bias in an internal investigation is significant, particularly if the employees who are conducting the investigation have a close personal or professional relationship with the complainant, the respondent or any of the witnesses. In a small company, or in a situation where a member in a senior leadership position has allegations levelled against them, this potential apprehension of bias is even greater.

This could also result in complaints of pre-determined outcomes, where staff involved in the process may argue that the investigation was not conducted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness. Any relationship (whether positive or negative) between the investigatory staff and the parties involved in the investigation is likely to come under significant scrutiny. This may open up the investigatory team to suggestions that the investigation was not conducted impartially or fairly.

Factors for considering whether to outsource 

Impartiality and transparency in the investigative process are always crucial considerations. In situations where there are especially sensitive allegations or the staff involved are likely to resort to post-investigatory litigation, any potential concerns regarding failures in process or impartiality can be addressed by outsourcing the entire investigation.

Similarly, if time is of the essence (particularly when staff have been temporarily stood down and it is important that the investigation process is concluded in an expeditious fashion) outsourcing the investigation may be the preferable outcome. 

This is because external investigators are able to devote themselves completely to the investigation process, while existing employees will most likely need to continue on with their day-to-day work.

the benefits of outsourcing

Although there is a cost associated with the outsourcing of an investigation, there are added benefits. Investigators with specialist expertise are able to deal with complex matters, and are best placed to provide reports which are more likely to be relied upon by the Fair Work Commission.

The majority of contemporary workplace investigations come with their own set of challenges and complexities. If you do not have the time or resources to conduct an investigation or you require an experienced investigator, WISE offers both supported and full service investigations to best assist.  

Police Involvement in Workplace Investigations

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, September 25, 2019

On occasion, police will become involved and/or need to be involved in the allegations from a workplace matter. In this situation, it's important for employers to know what their obligations are, and to be aware of some of the challenges that can arise. 

So, let's take a look at when police are or may need to be called in and what should happen once they are. 

WHAT matters require the police? 

Generally speaking, any allegation of a serious or potentially criminal nature necessitates the involvement of police. This includes allegations of physical assault, sexual assault, stalking, child abuse, significant fraud or theft. 

In the event that a complaint could have criminal implications, it is always a good idea to get the police involved as soon as possible. This helps ensure that any police investigation is not hampered by destroyed evidence, ongoing delays or similar interference. 

the employer's obligations

If police have become involved in a workplace matter, the police investigation takes precedence over the internal one. 

However, while the police investigation does take priority, an employer must still carry out an internal investigation. This is to afford the employee who is the subject of the investigation due process and procedural fairness. 

The internal investigation and a police investigation must both be treated entirely separately, but run in tandem. The internal investigation must be managed without impeding the police investigation. It is essential for the employer to communicate closely with police and provide assistance wherever required.

It is also important for an employer to remember that one of their paramount obligations is to provide a safe working environment for staff. This means that if there have been serious allegations such as physical or sexual abuse, the complainant and respondent must be separated in the workplace. Generally, staff against whom allegations have been made should be suspended on full pay, pending the outcome of the police investigation. 

the challenges involved 

It is likely that the police investigation will require the use of resources that would otherwise be engaged in conducting the internal investigation. For this reason, it can be difficult to actively investigate a workplace matter internally while the police are undertaking their own investigation. 

It can also be difficult for employers to balance the need to assist police with their legal obligations to their employees.

a case in point

This balancing act is demonstrated in the matter of Wong v Taitung Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 7982. In this matter, Mr Wong, an employee who was accused of theft, named several other employees allegedly involved in a criminal enterprise. 

Police suggested that the employer not take disciplinary action in relation to the employees, in order to obtain and preserve the evidence against them. This meant that the employer permitted Mr Wong to continue working with no warnings, despite having sufficient evidence to conduct a summary dismissal.

The police were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to charge him, however he was ultimately terminated. However, the Fair Work Commission found that the summary dismissal of Mr Wong was unjust in the circumstances. 

The added factor of police involvement while undertaking internal workplace investigations presents unique challenges for employers. The balancing of police intervention into serious criminal allegations, with the strict employment principles and procedures, is both challenging and essential to ensure employers' actions are reasonable. WISE provides external investigation services as well as training in conducting investigations necessary to manage the workplace-police dynamic. 

How to Move Forward After a Workplace Investigation

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, September 11, 2019

A workplace investigation can be a traumatic and emotional event for everyone involved. 

Let's take a look at how an organisation can move forward after a workplace investigation, regardless of whether the complaint has upheld or if any disciplinary action has been taken. 

WHAT happens when an investigation is concluded? 

After the investigative process has finished it is important for all parties involved to be updated on the outcome. This includes the complainant, the accused and potentially in some circumstances, witnesses who have been heavily involved in the process. It is important that the parties are kept in the loop and do not find out from each other or another source, that the investigation has concluded. 

Any concerns arising out of the investigative process and findings which are raised by the parties, should also be dealt with. This may include questions of how confidentiality is to be maintained; details of how any disciplinary action will be implemented and work in practice; concerns about how the parties are to continue to work together (if possible); and how an organisation will be able to support all of the parties affected by the investigation findings and outcomes. 

Once these concerns have been identified and addressed to the best of management's abilities, the outcome of the investigation should not be shared with the workplace generally. However should be communicated with the applicable parties, where appropriate to do so, that does not breach any parties confidentiality.  

Having a communication strategy will avoid rumour or conjecture.   

what are some common complications? 

It may be tempting for management not to share the outcome of an investigation with staff. This approach is usually taken in an effort to avoid breaching confidentiality or to squash gossip. 

However, poor communication generally results in a growing mistrust of management - especially if a decision is made to terminate a respondent's employment. If they are simply there one day and gone the next, this can have a negative impact on staff confidence levels. 

Communication is particularly crucial if the investigation has led to changes in the management structure. These changes could occur, for example, because there is a termination of employment in a team, or it has become apparent that the 'old' structure isn't efficient. These types of changes require extremely good communication at all times. 

Similarly, the temptation for staff to breach confidentiality and gossip is extreme after an investigation. This is especially so if the outcome is perceived as being unfair or inappropriate. In order to minimise the spread of gossip, management should ensure that as much information that is appropriate and maintains confidentiality, is distributed to the business in a timely fashion. All parties involved in the investigation, regardless of the nature of their involvement, should be reminded of their confidentiality obligations and the potential consequences of breaching them. 

Another common post-investigation outcome is the desire for retribution. This may occur regardless of what the findings were, because for example a peer may consider that a colleague has been treated unfairly. Alternatively, a colleague may form the view that the investigation has not been through or harsh enough or has come to the wrong conclusion. Regardless of the motivation, management must be cautious to avoid and identify any retribution and manage any issues that arise swiftly if this behaviour occurs. 

post-investigation strategies 

Even if an investigation has been run thoroughly and 'cleanly', it is important for post-investigation strategies to be in place to avoid potentially negative consequences. 

As noted, these strategies include excellent communication on a 'top down' basis. This is to minimise gossip and to ensure that confidence in management is restored. 

Additional strategies may include arranging mediation for the involved parties, to ensure that any concerns are voiced before an independent third party. 

The post-investigative period is also a good time for the organisation to pull together as a whole and discuss workplace values and standards. This can be an opportunity to reflect on the nature of the allegations (to the extent that they are disclosable) and to reaffirm the organisation's approach towards such behaviours.

If the alleged behaviour is particularly offensive, and strict action was taken as a result, this can also serve as a timely reminder for the organisation to reinforce and remind all staff, that code of conduct or criminal breaches are taken extremely seriously. 

Similarly, any changes in company culture or procedures that are clearly required in the wake of the investigation, can best be introduced in this timeframe. 

If you need effective resolution of workplace disputes following an investigation, WISE Workplace provides advice coupled with mediation services on how to best resolve post-investigation concerns.