How to Deal with an Uncooperative Respondent

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, May 29, 2019

When conducting investigations in the workplace, senior staff and human resource managers often have to deal with uncooperative respondents. 

Understandably, this can significantly hamper the progress of the investigation. 

WHat is an uncooperative respondent

There are many ways in which the smooth running of an investigation can be negatively affected by an uncooperative respondent. This can arise when: 

  • A respondent refuses to answer questions put to them, meaning that the investigator cannot create a coherent picture of the events or the respondent's perspective.
  • A respondent is no longer employed by the company. This may make it challenging  to even get in touch with the respondent, let alone encourage them to participate in an investigative process.
  • The respondent is out of the workplace on a form of leave (sick leave, stress leave, workers' compensation) that would in some circumstances mean that they are either not medically capable of, or not medically cleared for participation in the investigation process.
  • A respondent intentionally holds up the investigative process. For example, by frequent and consistent rescheduling of meetings, failing to attend work on days when interview sessions have been set up, or otherwise failing to engage in necessary parts of the process. 

what if there is an impact on others involved in the investigation?

It is particularly frustrating to have to deal with a recalcitrant or difficult respondent when other parties to the investigation are adversely affected as a consequence. 

For example, some respondents may seek to intimidate other witnesses with a view to discourage them from participating in the investigative process. 

When dealing with this type of situation, investigators should encourage witnesses to participate in the process by confirming that their involvement remains confidential, and by redacting sensitive information such as names or identifying details when providing documents to the respondent. 

Further, witnesses should be advised that their involvement in the investigative process cannot and will not have any adverse impact on their employment. 

can an investigation occur without the respondent's involvement? 

When faced with a situation where a respondent is failing to cooperate, an investigator can proceed without their involvement in certain circumstances. 

Crucially, it is important that an investigator is able to demonstrate that the investigation proceeded in accordance with all requirements of procedural fairness. 

In particular, this means that there must be a document trail confirming all the efforts that have been made to engage with the recalcitrant respondent. There must also be evidence that attempts have been made to explain to the respondent that their non-involvement may impact but will not stop the investigation process. 

The intention here is to be able to demonstrate to a court, tribunal or other third-party reviewer that the investigator took all reasonable steps to include the respondent and their point of view in the investigation. 

No presumptions or assumptions can be made about the evidence used to determine the substantiation of allegations, if a respondent does not participate in the investigation process. 

how can a respondent be encouraged to participate?

Although some respondents simply will not cooperate, investigators should provide a raft of different options to encourage respondents to meaningfully engage in the process.  

These options include:

  • Encouraging respondents to provide written responses to a series of questions. This is likely to work best for the respondents who are nervous about incriminating themselves during interviews, or otherwise concerned about the investigative process itself. 
  • Reassuring respondents that, despite the allegations facing them, they are entitled to both confidentiality and the assurance of procedural fairness. This may alleviate the concerns of some respondents who feel that they may not be offered a fair right of response. 
  • Reminding a respondent of the entitlement to have a support person present during an interview if required. 
  • Reassuring a respondent that there is an opportunity to provide comment, feedback, additional information and/or evidence on any findings if considered necessary for clarification. 
  • In certain circumstances, it may be best to advise respondents that external investigators have been engaged to facilitate the investigative process. This is likely to be most appropriate in situations where the allegations are particularly serious, or where there is some concern that an internal investigative process may not be completed objectively. For example, if the other parties involved in the investigation are in senior positions or are close to the investigators.  

For more detailed information on conducting interviews, you can purchase a copy of our book, Investigative Interviewing: A Guide for Workplace Investigators. If you're conducting a workplace investigation and need assistance, contact WISE Workplace today. 

The Privacy Act: Implications for Workplace Investigators

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, April 24, 2019

There can be many questions, fears and insecurities that arise in the course of a workplace investigation. Experienced investigators are often asked by witnesses and other staff to divulge what has been said and by whom. This is unsurprising; after all, for one or more people their reputation and/or job could be on the line as a result of accusations made. 

Workplace investigators must take care when dealing with the information gleaned from their enquiries. The Privacy Act 1988 creates a legal structure that controls how personal information can be obtained and used. From initial enquiries through to the final report, workplace investigators must carefully weigh the privacy implications of their work.

privacy and workplace investigations

The Privacy Act 1988 places firm legal boundaries around how businesses and government agencies are to deal with the personal information of individuals, including employees. Most employers will have the capacity under the Act to deal with employee information as they see fit - providing it is for a lawful purpose. 

Workplace investigators are bound by the privacy legislation, just as any person or organisation who deals with private information is. This can lead to considerable challenges within the course of the investigation, such as having private information that might or might not be of interest to another party or witness within the investigation. It is only in very unusual circumstances that such disclosures could be lawfully made. Overall, consent will not have been given for release to another party; consent is crucial in all such situations.

personal information and the final report

The client is of course the employer in workplace investigations, and it is to the employer that briefings and reports must be directed. It is not unusual for investigators to be bombarded by employees with requests for the release of information, statements, witness accounts and the like, that have been elicited during the investigation.

The reason for the requests is certainly understandable - people will be anxious to know what has been said, by whom and how this could potentially affect their employment. Yet legally this is not information that the workplace investigator is at liberty to provide, unless express consent has been given. 

Personal information at the disposal of the workplace investigator must be returned to the employer, generally in the form of the investigator's final report. Complainants, respondents and witnesses are certainly afforded a summary of the report and findings. Yet actual statements and transcripts involving personal information are certainly protected under the Act from most curious stakeholders.   

Privacy and future proceedings

It makes sense to keep a tight hold on information released during the investigation. Considering that investigative reports are often later scrutinised for their evidentiary worth, it is important for workplace investigators to keep in mind the ramifications of privacy principles upon their work. 

For example, statements that are tainted by knowledge of what another witness has said could certainly be inadmissible or weighted lightly in later proceedings. A loose investigative structure can also see one party privy to more information than another, raising inevitable questions of procedural fairness. 

Navigating a workplace investigation is certainly a matter of juggling many moving parts. Keeping a firm reign on the use of personal information during the investigation is one task that must remain at the forefront of all activities and decisions. For assistance on ways to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 during an investigation, get in touch with WISE.

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.

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.

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!

Overcoming Unconscious Bias

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, November 07, 2018

When conducting investigations or otherwise making determinations in the workplace, it is essential to avoid bias, whether conscious or unconscious. It is equally important to avoid a situation where co-workers believe decisions made in the workplace are biased - whether real or perceived.

What is unconscious bias? 

Unconscious bias may take a number of different forms, including:

  • Preferring or tending to support people who are similar to us (for example, people who attended the same high school, or who share the same ethnic background or sexual preference)
  • 'The beer test', also known as the 'in group' versus the 'out group' - having a bias in favour of people you would enjoy spending time with yourself.
  • The halo effect - where a specific characteristic or attribute of a person dominates impressions formed about that person. For example, if somebody is physically attractive this may increase their inherent like-ability, without merit. 
  • Confirmation bias - effectively, making judgements which support existing, previously held beliefs. 

For investigators, objectivity and drawing reasonable and unbiased conclusions is an essential component of a fair investigation. This doesn't alter the fact that everybody has unconscious biases. In order to remain neutral, investigators should take careful stock of what those biases may be for them specifically and ensure that they do not allow bias to influence their analysis of a party's credibility or their ultimate conclusions.

the effects of bias 

From an investigator's perspective, a failure to be objective may mean that they have subconsciously drawn premature conclusions about the outcome of the investigation. 

A common example involves a situation where a senior executive has been accused of serious wrongdoing, and the investigator understands that the removal or significant disciplining of the executive is likely to result in immediate negative effects for the business. 

Against that background, the investigator may be more likely to conduct the investigation in such a way that it justifies a decision which has already been made - namely that the executive will not be terminated or otherwise harshly disciplined. 

It is incumbent on impartial investigators to seek to uncover all facts that will help them determine the credibility of the parties involved, and assist in reaching a fair conclusion. It is equally important for investigators to remember that all evidence (however unpalatable) uncovered during an investigation must be taken into account in making a final determination, regardless of whether the information supports or contradicts the allegations. 

what is best practice?

Forming an inherent bias is a completely natural human response. It is important to ensure, however, that it does not lead or alter the outcome of an investigation. To this end, strategies for preventing inherent bias include:

  • Scheduling 'interrupters' - these are regular pauses in the process which are designed to force a decision-maker to step back and take an overview of how they have progressed with the investigation, as well as consciously consider whether they are being influenced by bias or not. 
  • Ensuring that the investigator's approach is as transparent as possible, and ideally an investigator should not be required to investigate people with whom they have ties. 

what can employers do?

Employers need to facilitate open and honest communication about the potential of bias affecting a decision-making process. This includes ensuring that all staff who are likely to conduct investigations or make sensitive decisions are aware of the potential impacts of bias, and take steps to avoid it. 

Another important stratagem is to ensure that investigators are not required to conduct investigations involving those with whom they have a prior relationship, to avoid any perception of bias. 

Investigations are an important tool for companies dealing with breaches of policy misconduct. If an employee views a process as fair and unbiased they will be more likely to report concerns. If you think there is an issue in your workplace and are concerned about potential or perceived bias, WISE can conduct independent and unbiased investigations. Contact us today for an obligation-free cost estimate.  

Is Briginshaw Still the Best Way of Solving the Puzzle?

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, September 19, 2018

As any HR manager will testify, conducting workplace investigations is one of the most important but vexed aspects of ensuring that an organisation runs smoothly. 

This is particularly the case when the various parties involved in an investigation are putting forward different versions of events - who do you know who to believe? For many years, workplace investigators have employed the Briginshaw test. 

The standard of proof in investigations such as these is on the balance of probabilities. The case of Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1930) 60 CLR 336 is generally regarded as authority for the proposition that if a finding, on the balance of probabilities, is likely to produce grave consequences the evidence should be of high probative value.

But how is this test applied to resolve disputes and make findings in workplace enquiries?

what is it?

The Briginshaw test refers to the civil standard of proof employed in the legal system, specifically in the 1938 divorce case of Briginshaw v Briginshaw. A 'standard of proof' refers to the evidence required by a court or, in the workplace context, an employer or investigator, to make a determination as to the likely truth or otherwise of allegations. 

Although the criminal burden of proof requires evidence to support a finding of 'beyond reasonable doubt', the civil standard only requires an assessment on the balance of probabilities - that is, whether it is more likely than not that one version of events occurred rather than another. 

In Briginshaw, the High Court warned that making a decision on the balance of probabilities does not require a purely mathematical 'weighing up' of the likelihood of one version of events being true over another. Instead, the decision in Briginshaw supports a conclusion that sufficient evidence has been provided if "the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal". In the workplace context, the tribunal determining the matter is the investigator. 

CASE STUDY - SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN CITY HALL

In workplace investigations, individuals are required to respond to allegations, as was the case with the (now former) Lord Mayor of Melbourne. In late 2017, Robert Doyle was accused of having sexually harassed two female councillors by inappropriately touching them. 

In March 2018, an investigation conducted by a Queen's Counsel was finalised, although Mr Doyle had already resigned by this time. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the potential consequences, the investigation relied on the Briginshaw test, and applied a standard whereby the investigator was 'reasonably satisfied' that the specific allegations of sexually inappropriate conduct related to Mr Doyle in his role as Lord Mayor. 

In Mr Doyle's case, the investigators accordingly based their determination on being "satisfied to a level which goes beyond the mere likelihood that something happened" that the allegations could be substantiated. 

The findings included that specific allegations were substantiated. More specifically the investigator made three adverse findings of sexually inappropriate conduct, and a fourth finding that the three matters occurred in the context of the Mayor having consumed substantial amounts of red wine. 

Factors which were taken into account in making this determination, included the likelihood of Mr Doyle having engaged in the behaviour because he had consumed significant amounts of red wine, and his credibility as a witness. The investigation also noted that one of the complainants made contemporaneous complaints and was consistent in her allegations. 

The report stated no findings had been made by a court or tribunal based on the information reported on as part of the investigation, however, if proven the behaviour could constitute sexual harassment within the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010, and gross misconduct under the Local Government Act 1989.

what can we learn?

One difficulty with applying the Briginshaw test in workplace investigations, is that an investigation does not constitute a judicial process. Accordingly, participants give information on a voluntary basis only. 

This inability to compel testimony or information from witnesses may mean that a determination is made on the balance of probabilities - but without having all information available. Indeed, in the absence of a court or the threat of perjury, there is no real compulsion for accurate information to be given in a workplace investigation. Undue reliance on such information could result in an unjust determination. 

Failure to recognise the difference between a court and the role of an investigator can lead to mistakes, and allegations can be left unsubstantiated in circumstances when they may have occurred. In circumstances where the investigator is inexperienced or does not have access to all required information, it may well result in an inequitable outcome, or a situation where a conclusion is made based on partial information or poor facts. 

When a workplace or employee faces allegations, its important for the investigator to ask the relevant questions, examine documents, and analyse all relevant evidence carefully when making conclusions about what occurred. Making findings using the Briginshaw principle and explaining the reasoning behind the outcomes of the investigation can assist employers in considering what further action needs to be taken in light of the findings. 

It is important for employers and investigators to ensure that findings of workplace investigations will withstand the highest level of scrutiny. A higher level of skill will be required from an investigator when circumstantial or uncorroborated evidence is being considered. 

If you require assistance analysing evidence, or conducting an investigation, contact WISE today!  

Legal Issues When Conducting Workplace Interviews

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, August 29, 2018

When a workplace investigation has to be conducted, the most valuable information will generally be obtained through interviewing the staff involved in the incident and any witnesses. This information will play a critical role in determining what has happened or who or what was responsible. 

In order to obtain relevant and reliable information from the parties involved, good communication skills, an eye for detail and the ability to think on your feet is required. However, it is equally important to remember your legal obligations when interviewing staff.

legal issues

In conducting an interview process, key legal issues include:

  • The creation of statements 
    When an interview is conducted, a statement recording the comments made during the interview must be prepared and provided to the interviewee for review and, if the contents of the statement are agreed upon, signature. 
  • Audio recordings
    The laws on the creation of audio recordings differ in each Australian state. Generally speaking, if a person is advised that they are being recorded and they do not explicitly object, it is acceptable to continue with an audio recording. It is best practice to seek their explicit approval once recording has commenced. It is important to bear in mind that a transcript of the recording must be made available to the interviewee upon request. 
  • Support person
    Anybody involved in a workplace investigation, but especially the person against whom allegations have been made, must have the opportunity to have a support person of their choice present during each step of the investigative process, particularly during the interview. Witnesses have to be informed of this right in advance, in order to provide them with the opportunity to find a suitable support person.   

Procedural fairness and privacy

Perhaps the most important aspect of any workplace interview is ensuring that the process is conducted in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness. This includes:

  • The complainant and the respondent have the opportunity to provide their entire version of events and to have a support person present. 
  • The respondent is advised of the particulars of the allegations against them, so that they can respond in detail. 
  • The respondent is advised of their rights in relation to the investigative process.
  • Proceedings are not delayed unnecessarily.
  • The respondent has sufficient time to prepare for the interview process. Best practice is to allow at least 48 hours' notice but preferably more, depending on the complexity of the particulars. 
  • All relevant witnesses are interviewed.
  • Exculpatory and inculpatory evidence is taken into account.
  • All evidence is considered in an unbiased and impartial manner. 
  • No finding of guilt or otherwise is made until after all parties have had the opportunity to participate in the interview process and had the opportunity to respond to the allegations against them. 

All parties involved in the investigation are entitled to privacy. Witnesses who have disclosed information in confidence, may be intimidated by the fear of victimisation or backlash. This means that information divulged during the interview process is to be kept strictly confidential, unless it is absolutely necessary for the resolution of the dispute that it be shared beyond the immediate investigative team.

tips for successfully conducting an interview

In addition to taking the above steps, inexperienced interviewers may wish to consider obtaining specific legal advice, depending on the situation and the allegations which have been made. 

The interview process should always be undertaken from the perspective that only information which is collected fairly and decisions which are made in an unbiased manner will support disciplinary or administrative action against any employee. 

If you dismiss an employee or take disciplinary action against them without affording procedural fairness and establishing the relevant facts, it is possible that Fair Work Australia or other relevant tribunals may find the action was harsh, unjust or unreasonable in the circumstances. 

An investigation may be costly and time consuming, however the consequences of not conducting one may be even greater. If you need assistance in conducting investigations and undertaking investigative interviewing, contact WISE Workplace today, or purchase our 'Investigative Interviewing Book'.   

Analysing Evidence: The Key Step of Workplace Investigations

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, August 15, 2018

One of the most challenging and important tasks undertaken by a workplace investigator is the analysis of the evidence that has been gathered during the course of the investigation. 

Key questions to consider include: What evidence should be contained in the investigation report? How do I analyse what I have gathered? How does this connect with the findings I make in the investigation report? 

Here's how to effectively and transparently analyse the evidence.

WHAT evidence should be included? 

There is a simple answer to this question: ALL relevant evidence collected in the course of the workplace investigation will need to form part of the analysis, the findings and the final report. The act of leaving evidence out without explanation can - intentionally or otherwise - indicate a lack of thoroughness or even worse a prejudgement about a fact in issue. A piece of evidence might ultimately prove to be of little consequence, but this should be at least acknowledged and noted. So if in doubt don't leave it out. 

Exculpatory and inculpatory evidence

One way to begin marshalling material is to consider if the evidence is exculpatory or inculpatory. If we think of the allegation in question - let's say sexual harassment in the workplace - we can begin to analyse the evidence in terms of those items that most likely indicate that the conduct occurred, and those that point to the opposite conclusion. 

Evidence that indicates or tends to indicate that something occurred is known as inculpatory evidence. Conversely if evidence vindicates or tends to clear the alleged harasser of the wrongdoing, then this is known as exculpatory evidence. 

It is unlikely that you will have two neat piles from the start! However, this formal approach to organising the evidence can assist in creating a logical report that withstands future scrutiny. 

Analysis of the evidence

For each piece of evidence examined, investigators need to determine how strong or weak it is in the overall context of the investigation. Strong evidence will be consistent, reliable and in terms of witness statements, believable, probable and credible. 

Considering that a workplace investigation often reflects strong emotions and internal allegiances within the organisation, it is important to make an objective assessment of the reliability of statements made and items presented. Investigators will be on the lookout for statements that might be self-serving, or made a long time after the event in questions, for example.

Other factors to consider will be internal anomalies in statements or possible collusion between witnesses. An element of triangulation of the data will be required - the investigator is looking to detect where dubious connections indicate a weakness in evidence, or conversely where consistent evidence is noticeable across a number of different sources, including documentary evidence. 

It is important to compare and contrast evidence from different sources: Which parts of the evidence consistently support the view that the events in question occurred and which indicate that it did not occur. Once this is done, the weight or value of each part of the evidence can be assessed.    

writing up the analysis

Those new to workplace investigations can sometimes become daunted by the task of reporting on findings made. It is important to be clear about the methodology, about the manner in which the evidence was handled and how you have arrived at your findings. 

Take a methodical approach, which will assist your own thinking as well as allow any reader a logical progression through the document. Some organisations will require the report to be set out in a particular manner and it is important to ascertain if this is the case. 

Above all - make your findings clear. If your finding is that an event occurred, then state this clearly. It will be necessary to explain why you consider certain claims to be substantiated or where there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion on a contended point. This document could well be used in a number of forums including court and tribunal proceedings. It should be a reflection of the fact that the workplace investigation was fair, that all relevant evidence was considered and included, and that findings are based upon well-balanced evidentiary analysis. 

A workplace investigation is a systematic process for establishing facts and circumstances surrounding a complaint or allegation. If you need assistance with conducting an investigation, or would like support in analysing your evidence gathered, WISE provides both supported and full investigation services.

Counter Allegations - Who Did What When?

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Experienced workplace investigators are well aware that when two or more people are in dispute, there will inevitably be differing perspectives on what 'the truth' might look like. Contentious workplace issues can often play out in a 'he said, she said' fashion, with one allegation being closely followed up by a second person's counter-allegation. Such complications should be dealt with in a fair, considered and methodical way.

Separate allegations made by opposing parties will ideally be dealt with in discrete stages by workplace investigators, with each being handled in accordance with its individual merits. And as evidence comes to light regarding one or more of the competing allegations, investigators should aim to assess and weigh each piece of information with utmost care and objectivity.

When two tribes go to war 

When a counter-allegation is initially made, it is important not to jump to conclusions regarding this development. It does not necessarily mean that the first complainant was misrepresenting events or indeed that the second complainant is somehow defensive, guilty or panicky. It is possible that both the original and the counter complaints are valid.

Let's take an example: perhaps she took his stapler and he wiped her hard-drive. Two complete denials on the same issue can require the workplace investigator to look more closely at the milieu of the counter-allegations. For instance, if two workers in a scuffle both identically calm that "I did nothing - she pushed me", an astute investigator will know that a pointed and methodical approach to the counter-allegations is certainly called for.

In each of these scenarios, both allegations should be investigated and dealt with separately. It can be tempting to create one big file entitled 'Stapler/hard-drive fiasco' or 'Smith and Jones stoush'. Yet clear delineations between people, events and timing will ensure that impartiality and clarity are maintained for the duration of the investigation and that the validity of each complaint is tested.

Seen and unseen allegationS

Very occasionally a workplace investigation involving counter-allegations will be easily settled. For example, the employee might not have been at work on the day that she allegedly stole the stapler - a simple mistake, evidenced by the work roster and now the complaint file can (on that issue at least) be finalised.

If only things were so simple... In most workplace situations, the investigator will need to step carefully through complex evidence attached to each allegation. Some events might be directly witnessed in a cut and dried way; Brown was in the kitchen with Smith and Jones on 7 December 2017 and can confidently say she saw Smith push Jones, who then walked away. Yet in many cases there are no witnesses to wrongdoing in the workplace and the 'he did/she did' scenario must be dealt with. 

Further clarification in many forms becomes the best way to methodically tease out the knots of knowledge. This might take the form of documentary evidence, circumstantial evidence such as presence at a meeting that day, or a contemporaneous report such as an OH&S report involving counter-complainants. A tidy pattern of good circumstantial evidence can at times provide the clarity needed in the face of vehement counter-allegations. The workplace investigator must carefully assess the quality, reliability and utility of such material, being sure not to make assumptions and/or factual errors along the way.

Hearsay - treading lightly on complex terrain

As with all areas of law and investigations, hearsay evidence can provide helpful insights in situations where nothing more concrete is available. Hearsay is generally words or things observed by an individual who was not directly present when an event occurred. In other words, it is a type of indirect evidence. A simple idea, but surprisingly difficult to manoeuvre successfully during investigations.

Great care is needed in these situations, as hearsay evidence is notorious for causing problems later in post-investigation proceedings. Employees may go home and talk openly to their spouse about distressing events. Or they stomp back to their desks, muttering to a colleague about 'the stapler thief'. Yet the spouse or the colleague cannot tell us much about what actually happened. They are a friendly ear - after the alleged event.

Such indirect evidence can be the least helpful in many cases. However, experienced investigators will know how to gather and utilise such material when more direct evidence is difficult to obtain.

Workplace allegations and motivations

It is not unheard of that rather ulterior motives can exist in a workplace allegation. When stories are not gelling, it is natural for the workplace investigator to think - what am I missing? Why would this person make this up? It is important to consider the possibility that rivalries, emotional issues and/or collusion might unfortunately form part of the mix that has motivated an internal complaint. While it does not pay to assume such a phenomenon, investigators should be aware that such dynamics can and do arise in the workplace.

In workplace investigations, we find that it is never simple. If you have an investigation that has 'blown' out, or you are reviewing cross and counter complaints and could use some professional assistance, then contact WISE today.