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. 

Social Media Misconduct: The Need for a Fair Investigation

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, June 19, 2019

An ever-increasing key dilemma for employers in the modern age is how to deal with the misconduct by staff through their use of social media platforms. 

The list of potentially offending conduct is lengthy. For example, staff might call in sick but then post details of their activities on social media. Employees could post inappropriate, defamatory or confidential information on their accounts. One high-profile example is the sacking of a PayPal executive in 2014 who publicly ranted about his co-workers on Twitter, or more recently the well publicised matter regarding Israel Folau and his instagram post. 

Given such a potential minefield, we look at what employers should do to ensure a fair investigation relating to allegations of social media misconduct.

procedural fairness key in australian case

The matter of Singh V Aerocare Flight Support Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 6186 highlights the importance of ensuring that an investigation is thorough and involves appropriate levels of procedural fairness. This requirement applies in social media misconduct, as in all other cases.

Mr Singh was dismissed from his role as a baggage handler in October 2015. Although the reasons for his dismissal were not made immediately clear to him, after proceedings had been issued in the Fair Work Commission, the employer alleged that Mr Singh had breached its social media policy by publicly supporting ISIS and known associates. 

It was also claimed that he had made radicalised comments against the Australian Government. Of particular relevance and concern was Mr Singh's status as an airline employee. 

Before he was terminated, Mr Singh was advised that there had been complaints involving his social media posts and that there would be an investigation. However, Commissioner Hunt found no evidence that Mr Singh was told he could bring a support person to the investigation meetings. Further, although the termination related to a number of posts on social media, Commissioner Hunt accepted that not all posts were shown to Mr Singh for his response. 

Factors in the decision

Relevant factors taken into account by the Commission in determining whether conduct occurring away from the workplace can invoke disciplinary action, include conduct that is: 

  • Likely to cause serious damage to the employer/employee relationship; or
  • Damaging to the employer's interests; or
  • Incompatible with the employee's duty as an employee. 

Before the Commission, Mr Singh's evidence was to the effect that he was against ISIS and radical Islam, and that his comments had been sarcastic. 

the outcome of the case

It was concluded that the employer had not spent sufficient time investigating whether or not Mr Singh was in fact opposed to ISIS. Commissioner Hunt accepted, that if there had been sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Singh had a radicalised perspective on Islam, there would have been too great a risk for an employee with these views to continue working at the airport. 

However, it was determined that in the circumstances the employer should have gone to greater effort to investigate Mr Singh's Facebook newsfeed. If that had occurred, it was considered that it would have been clear that Mr Singh's claimed sarcasm was the true motivation behind his postings. 

Accordingly, the Commission determined that, if a proper investigation had taken place, it would have been apparent that Mr Singh was not radicalised. Therefore, Mr Singh's dismissal was deemed harsh, unjust and unreasonable. 

Instead of terminating his employment, it was considered that an appropriate disciplinary action commensurate with the misconduct would have been reiterating the social media policy of the employer and insisting that Mr Singh refrain from posting incendiary material.

need help in ensuring a fair investigation? 

This case demonstrates the importance of undertaking a thorough and considered investigation before taking serious disciplinary action. In unfair dismissal claims, the Commission will not hesitate to award judgments in favour of the applicant where it is determined that the employment was terminated in a manner that is not procedurally fair.

If you would like to ensure your investigation process is fair and enforceable, WISE Workplace provides investigation services, as well as 'conducting workplace investigations' training. 

Sharing Information After a Workplace Investigation

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, May 08, 2019

For employers, the completion of a workplace investigation can feel like the end of a marathon. The relevant issues have been aired and discussed, a report delivered and decisions made. However, it is also important to effectively share relevant information with affected parties and the broader organisation as the investigation process draws to a close. 

It is likely that employees and other stakeholders affected by the workplace investigation will need feedback in order to comfortably move on from this often unsettling time in the workplace. 

Before commencing post-investigation communication, management should consider issues of confidentiality, the rights of all the affected parties and the best ways to share information across the broader organisation.

Providing confidence in the outcome

The period after a workplace investigation can be an excellent opportunity for both staff and management to make changes and move forward confidently from a difficult situation. 

Providing key stakeholders a broad summary of the investigative findings and a plan for improvement often fosters a sense of understanding and closure. For affected parties, a clear and concise summary of individual outcomes and actions will of course be appropriate and necessary. At every level, the goal is to communicate honestly and with a positive eye to the future.

keeping affected parties informed

Management should meet individually with those affected by the findings of the investigation. The process can be uncomfortable for those who are personally involved. There will often be a sense of apprehension, and in some cases, a curiosity about the decision-making process. 

Affected parties deserve a chance to have the outcomes and the decision-making process explained on a one-on-one basis. However, it is also important to ensure that only the appropriate amount of information regarding the investigation is shared. 

In particular, confidentiality will be necessary in relation to the statements of witnesses and other affected parties. Sensitive information, claims and descriptions have the potential to cause unnecessary harm and can jeopardise the integrity of the final report. 

A copy of the full report should not be released to those involved with the investigation. This document is accessible only by the employer at this stage. The affected parties to an investigation have a legal entitlement to be informed in writing of the findings, conclusions, recommendations and the basis of those findings. The parties therefore could be provided with a written summary of the full report, including the allegations and findings, as they relate to each individual party. 

A witness is not an affected party and should not be provided with the report or a summary unless they are also an affected party, such as a complainant or respondent. 

Communicating across the organisation

Confidentiality is of course of paramount importance. Neither witnesses nor staff want to be fed vague explanations about the outcomes of the investigations. A workplace investigation will commonly reveal deficiencies in policies and procedures, and/or the state of organisational culture. In clearly explaining the outcomes of the investigation, management can allay fears, dampen any gossip and provide a positive statement about any changes to come following the conclusion of an investigation. 

The investigation might well have been an unsettling time within the organisation. Post-investigation communication can be a valuable means of restoring confidence and providing a clear vision for future activities. For example, policies might need to be updated or individual procedures changed for the better. Positive communication about findings and the actions to be taken will help to restore staff equilibrium.

implementing change post workplace investigation 

It can be a challenge for management to know exactly where to start when explaining and implementing decisions following an investigation. 

At WISE Workplace we have significant experience with workplace investigations and helping to manage the aftermath of these processes. Should you require assistance in conducting workplace investigations and communicating outcomes, contact WISE today.

How to Take Action when Employees and Alcohol Mix

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, March 27, 2019

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

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

approaching an intoxicated employee

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

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

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

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

factors that may contribute to alcohol abuse

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

Key risk factors include:

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

How alcohol use can impact the workplace

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

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

Steps to address alcohol use in the workplace

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

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

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

The Legality of Recording Conversations

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, March 20, 2019

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

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

when can you record a conversation?

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

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

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

what about recordings in the workplace? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

covert recordings inadvisable at work

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

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

Dealing with Absconding Staff over Christmas

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, December 12, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what steps should an employer take?

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

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

what the fair work commission says

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

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

why do employees abscond?  

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

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

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

How to keep staff engaged and avoid staff going AWOL

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

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

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

Procurement and Corruption - The Warning Signs

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Effective procurement requires the ability to foster productive relationships and to secure the best possible terms within a contract or project. However, there can be a fine line between savvy negotiation and a gradual descent into corrupt and/or fraudulent behaviour. 

Despite robust legal and policy requirements relating to procurement activity, fraud is nevertheless an ever-present problem within the supply chain sector. We examine some of the danger signs of corruption to consider within any procurement arrangement.

procurement fraud

Corruption and fraud go hand in hand. In procurement work, tender processes can be circumvented or omitted altogether, documents altered subtly to benefit internal operatives, and bids and contracts massaged to create mutually beneficial gains. Fraud can begin with lazy practices or commercial white lies, growing to a tipping point where procurement officers enable a status quo of daily corruption. By favouring existing contractors or accepting inducements to deal with others, procurement divisions can become riddled with fraudulent and self-serving behaviour.

red flags of corruption 

So what are some of the conditions that enable procurement fraud? Time and money lie at the heart of procurement activities, and both can usefully serve as red flags for possible corruption. Shorter-than-usual timeframes for tender processes can be a tell-tale sign of a strategy to reduce competitive bids and give favour to a particular supplier. 

Similarly, the acceptance of a higher bid with no meritorious justification can and should ring alarm bells. Other red flags include: poor communication protocols regarding procurement management; a lack of well-documented processes and outcomes concerning payment agreements and project costings.

a complex framework

In NSW, the procurement policy framework provides an extremely complex set of legal, governance and administrative requirements around procurement activities. 

While this has brought various authoritative sources of information into one structure, the framework does place considerable administrative demands on staff at the coalface. 

Management should understand and champion the framework, providing effective training and support to staff around ongoing issues of transparency and integrity.

Solutions to fraud and corruption

Establishing the right culture is the number one weapon against corruption. This includes fostering a work environment where transparency and integrity are at the core of business-as-usual. Staff training should be in depth and ongoing, with refreshers provided at regular intervals. Organisations need to audit and assess current internal controls, taking nothing for granted when designing mechanisms for combatting fraud. 

Anti-corruption controls already in place must be monitored for strength and efficacy at regular intervals. When red flags go up, a fraud response plan should be accessible, relevant and understood by the entire procurement division. Further, a thorough knowledge of current and potential suppliers should be developed and maintained, including detailed information on supplier capacity and sub-contracting. 

Perhaps most importantly - yet often overlooked - the procurement process itself must be monitored each step of the way, both for individual contracts and in terms of ongoing operations within the procurement division. A further enhancement possibility exists within business analysis programs; harnessing the power of data can provide an incredible means of monitoring procurement processes, picking up any suspicious activities through detailed analytics.

hear it on the grapevine

Grapevine is owned and operated by WISE Workplace. In 2016, we launched Grapevine to enhance the way our clients manage their businesses. The Grapevine Confidential Whistleblower Hotline provides employees with a safe and secure environment to report misconduct, enabling insightful management of complaints and the ability to bring about real cultural change and reduce risk. 

The Grapevine call centre is located in Queensland and staffed by trusted and experienced operators. The call centre is manned 24/7 and receives over 1,000 calls per week. For a free quote, call WISE today. And should you wish to learn more about methods for assessing potential fraud within your current procurement practices, we will be happy to assist.  

Why Employers Can't Afford to Ignore Procedural Fairness

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, August 01, 2018

It is important for employers to keep procedural fairness top of mind when conducting workplace investigations or taking disciplinary action.

Failing to do so can result in terminations being deemed unfair, as the recent Fair Work Commission decision of Nicholas Jarmain v Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 3255 (14 June 2018) shows. 

background of the case 

Linfox Armaguard dismissed casual employee Nicholas Jarmain in October 2017 for serious misconduct. While the Fair Work Commission found the termination was justified, it determined that Mr Jarmain had been unfairly dismissed due to insufficient procedural fairness.

Mr Jarmain was dismissed after a client complained that he was "overly engaged in interaction and discussion" and generally inappropriate with staff members and customers of the client.

In response to the allegations, Mr Jarmain was asked to undergo an interview with a security officer and a union support person present. Explanations for his behaviour were sought (and his answers recorded) during the interview, and Mr Jarmain was then suspended from duty.

At a meeting three weeks later, Mr Jarmain was given further opportunity to explain the circumstances giving rise to the complaints against him. However, as his preferred union delegate was injured and unable to attend, the employer substituted their own preferred union official for that meeting.

The employer terminated Mr Jarmain's casual employment the next day, citing wilful and deliberate breaches of safety and security procedures. 

Breaches of procedural fairness

In the interest of procedural fairness, Mr Jarmain's employer should have advised him what claims were being investigated before asking him to participate in a recorded interview.

This was considered to be particularly egregious given that the employer is a big company with sufficient access to HR professionals. HR could (and indeed should) have been relied upon to ensure that Mr Jarmain was afforded procedural fairness when facing disciplinary action.

While the employer's reasons for dismissing Mr Jarmain were "sound, defensible and well-founded", especially given the job involves loaded weapons, the Commission concluded that the flaws in procedure, such as failing to provide any formal warnings or reprimands, were significant. 

The Commission determined that Mr Jarmain had not been given sufficient notification of the circumstances surrounding the complaints against him, or indeed the events giving rise to the complaints - and that he had effectively been ambushed, without sufficient information to defend himself against the claims. 

This meant that both Mr Jarmain's interview and ultimate dismissal were contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness.

Additional failures included the employer selecting the support person assisting Mr Jarmain in the second interview (as opposed to permitting the employee to pick his support person). By making such a decision it was akin to removing Mr Jarmain's right to have a support person present at all.

Further, the employer should not have suspended Mr Jarmain without pay.

the final decision

Ultimately, given the nature of the industry in which Mr Jarmain was employed, Commissioner Cambridge declined to order reinstatement of the employment but ordered compensation payments to the tune of $8,592.

This case demonstrates that having a valid reason to dismiss is only one factor that is considered in unfair dismissal claims. The Commission will not hesitate to award judgments in favour of the applicant where the employment was terminated in a manner that is not procedurally fair.

If you would like to ensure your investigation process is fair, WISE provides full and supported investigation services, as well as training.