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.  

Making Findings in Workplace Investigations

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, August 07, 2019

When a workplace investigation is coming to an end, one task can seem deceptively simple - making findings. 

It might seem that because all the information is now available, the investigator can surely just state 'the obvious' in their report. Yet as with most tasks in the investigative process, quality outcomes require much greater consideration of relevant material. Before findings can be made, a thorough analysis of the evidence needs to occur. Findings will need to link clearly with this analysis - and all evidence must be considered.

Issues around organisational policies, plus the correct weight to be given to particular pieces of evidence, are further pieces in the puzzle of investigative findings that need to be addressed.  

analysing the evidence 

Workplace investigators are required to carefully and objectively analyse all available evidence. This includes the evidence that both supports and rebuts a likely finding. For example, if three workers said that it happened but one states that they are not sure, all four pieces of evidence must be analysed and discussed with equal consideration.

It is certainly unacceptable to simply discard a piece of evidence because it does not fit with the majority. As well as not being transparent, experienced investigators know that a small piece of contrary evidence might actually support a bigger finding at another point of the process. 

The analysis of all evidence will also incorporate the consideration of the weight to be attributed to each piece of evidence. This requires an investigator to consider for example the probative weight and value attributed to direct evidence in comparison to hearsay evidence. 

Findings need to be clear and defensible; links from evidence, to analysis, to findings and back again must be logical and well-explained. Essentially, the investigator is asking whether or not the evidence supports, on the balance of probabilities, the findings that are eventually made.  

following the organisation's policies  

As part of making accurate and defensible findings, investigators need to consider and understand the organisation's policies. Logically, in order to make a finding whether or not inappropriate behaviour has occurred, the first step will be an examination of the policy documents. 

Has the conduct in question as alleged breached a policy - and were the policies and procedures clearly understood by all concerned? General state and commonwealth laws will of course also play a part in findings, and in combination with organisational policies, will assist the investigator to mark the perimeters of acceptable behaviour.

weighing the evidence

Making findings can sometimes feel like the completion of a rather large jigsaw puzzle. Evidence is examined and analysed, with pieces being compared to one another for similarities and differences. Investigators need to consider the relevance of each piece of evidence to the allegations and overall investigation, giving more or less weight to some pieces of evidence over others for any number of reasons. 

Sometimes more weight will be given to a piece of evidence because it is for example, clearer, more compelling or better corroborated than other evidence.

remember briginshaw 

The care with which evidence is examined and weighed can have significant consequences for any potential future proceedings.

For serious allegations, employers will need to be able to rely on high-quality evidence from the initial investigation, in order to meet the evidentiary threshold. The standard of proof in all civil matters is 'the balance of probabilities', requiring that parties meet this standard via the evidence that can be marshalled in their favour. 

In matters where serious allegations have been made, the courts - beginning with Briginshaw v Briginshaw - have indicated that the standard of proof itself remains the same in all cases, but in serious matters where the finding is likely to produce grave consequences, the evidence should be of a particularly high probative value in order to meet the mark.

High-quality OUTCOMES

It is important for employers and their investigators to ensure that findings of workplace investigations can withstand the highest level of scrutiny and appeal. Given the complexities surrounding current workplace investigations, a high level of skill is required to ensure report findings are both sound and defensible. To ensure that you are assessing evidence effectively, WISE provides training in conducting workplace investigations

Writing an Investigation Report

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, July 31, 2019

To say that a workplace investigation report is an important document is certainly something of an understatement. Following the investigation, the report will be relied upon for all manner of significant organisational decisions, tasks and action. 

As a result, it is essential that workplace investigators create a professional, transparent and unbiased document.

ONE REPORT, MANY PURPOSES

When the investigation is complete and the report is handed to the employer, this document will provide a focal point for immediate action.

Employers will rely upon the report for appropriate disciplinary action, and as a means of establishing compliance where required. The investigation report will often form the basis of policy changes and will need to be clear and persuasive in this regard. 

Perhaps most importantly, the report will underpin the defence of any future claims. How the investigation has been carried out and the weight to be given to findings will be on display now and into the future. 

A sound methodology 

It is insufficient to simply cobble together some aspects of the investigation and present a pleasant-looking report. The report should be transparent; provide a clear step-by-step explanation of the investigation; state the allegations; make reference to the information and documents obtained and considered and the process of analysing and weighting the evidence - among many other elements. 

Readers will be looking to see how the interview process was carried out, if parties were treated with equal respect, plus whether findings were made with objectivity and on the evidence available.

The report should clearly reflect the author's thinking regarding whether allegations are substantiated, unsubstantiated or if a lack of evidence exists. 

A strong methodology will ensure the highest quality of evidence obtained - which can be of great significance when serious claims have been made, as explained in the Briginshaw v Briginshaw case. 

the right report format 

There is a tried-and-true approach to setting out a professional workplace investigation report. The first item is the executive summary which - as it sounds - provides a high-level overview of the process and outcomes. The methodology of the investigation is explained, demonstrating an underpinning coherence to the investigation process. Importantly, the civil standard of proof - 'on the balance of probabilities' - is defined and explained to ensure there is an understanding across a broad audience. The allegations, particulars and evidence are then set out in a professional and objective manner. 

A most challenging aspect of the report is describing and explaining the findings made. In essence, the investigator is explaining why one person's version of events or piece of evidence is to be preferred over another. Again, this must be done thoroughly and with transparency. 

The investigator then sets out any other issues that have arisen through the investigation, such as other issues identified in the workplace, the illness of a hoped-for witness or difficulties accessing documents, just as examples. Finally, the report sets out the final findings and where requested or appropriate makes recommendations in a clear and unbiased manner.

top tips for report writing 

When approaching the task of writing a report, a useful phrase is 'know your audience'. In most cases it will be the employer who has sole access to the investigation report. Yet the reality remains that a court could examine the report document at any future stage. 

In any event, aim to be short and concise at all times with clear and unbiased descriptions. Sometimes the investigation report will need to reflect the technical realities of the workplace, which might include convoluted descriptions or layered processes. 

In these circumstances it can be a good idea to create a glossary of terms or a similar explanatory system that allows for inclusion of and explanation of complex information, while not interrupting the flow of the document. Keep to a logical sequence. Having done the good work of a high-quality investigation, it can be all undermined if the employer is left with a report that is confusing or unhelpful. 

In writing up findings, it is essential that investigators 'follow the evidence'. For example, if evidence A plus evidence B led you to finding W then clearly state this. You cannot simply 'find W' without explaining your reasoning.

The task of pulling together all relevant material into a cohesive report at the conclusion of an investigation can be a challenging prospect. Utilising an external investigator can ensure a report is written in an unbiased, objective and timely manner. To appoint an expert to your organisation's investigation, contact WISE.

Interview Techniques for Workplace Investigations

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, July 24, 2019

In any workplace investigation, there will be multiple competing factors for an investigator to consider. One core issue is developing the appropriate interview strategy.

Investigative interviewing requires careful consideration of the purpose of the investigation, and exactly who will be interviewed. There is also the question of tone - ensuring that the interview remains cordial and does not begin to resemble an interrogation. 

At WISE Workplace, we have a wealth of experience in investigative interviewing, including the best practice interview techniques to bring to the task.  

the purpose of the investigative interview

The purpose of the investigative interview is to glean relevant information about a workplace allegation in a manner that is professional and fair. 

In devising a good investigation strategy, the interviewer will carefully select who is to be interviewed during the process. 

People with first-hand knowledge are the key - not those who simply heard a rumour or were told something second-hand. Such statements constitute hearsay, and can reduce the weight of the evidence and the overall value of the investigation if relied upon. It is important for the investigator to identify and interview those people who were directly involved, or who witnessed a situation first-hand. 

Ideally there will be enough witnesses available to corroborate evidence. If facts such as the identity of an alleged bully can be verified between witnesses, or certain actions can be adequately cross-checked, the resulting findings and report are likely to be sound. 

Having a support person available for witnesses is always recommended. Being interviewed for a workplace investigation can be stressful for any of the parties. The presence of a trusted support person can help to calm the witness.

interviewing or interrogating? 

It is vital to create the right environment for the interview. At a fundamental level, the interviewer should avoid any method of questioning that could be seen as interrogating rather than interviewing.

Keep the tone conversational and allow enough time to develop rapport across the interview. Inviting questions around how the interview will work, plus describing procedural aspects like recording and note-taking can assist in reducing anxiety. 

State the obvious. For example: "This is a difficult situation involving certain allegations in the workplace, and we appreciate your help here today".

Offer the witness the option to stop and clarify any questions and to take comfort breaks if needed. Firing off questions and requiring immediate answers is no way to develop rapport and will not illicit the best information and or evidence. 

Adopting a stern or hostile demeanour is unproductive and can also lead to claims of bias. A professional interviewer should never see themselves as a TV detective with a rough attitude and a light shining in the respondent's face! The interview is not seen as a technique used to extract a confession from a witness. Building good rapport is the key to a quality investigative report that stands the test of time.

high-quality interview techniques 

The experienced interviewer understands how to conduct the workplace interview with transparency and objectivity. While the personal information of others needs to be protected, the witness should be informed of all relevant material relevant to the allegations. Even alarming or distasteful allegations should be dealt with professionally and objectively. 

Building rapport with a witness is essential for effective interviewing. Structured processes such as the PEACE model of interviewing can help interviewers to cover all aspects of a professional interview. 

The PEACE model was developed in the United Kingdom to help investigators conduct the fairest and most productive interview possible. The model provides eight steps that should be undertaken which includes:

PLANNING: Examine what planning and preparation need to occur before an interview.

ENGAGE: Choose methods that assist in building rapport with the respondent, complainant or witness.

ACCOUNT: Gather interviewee accounts in a logical and effective structure. Seek clarification where needed. 

CLOSURE: Complete the interview politely and professionally.

EVALUATE: Review the contents of your transcript and take any necessary next steps.  

Other tools such as active listening and open questions are also excellent ways to gather the best information, without raising problems of biased interviewing - perceived or otherwise. 

Don't rush the witness as they tell their story. Ask open questions, which allow the witness to provide a spontaneous and genuine description of events, rather than being fenced in by closed questioning or unnecessary interruptions.

Mastering the Investigative Interview 

Obtaining first-hand witness evidence by way of interview is essential to uncovering the facts of a matter. However, conducting interviews into serious workplace issues such as bullying and sexual harassment can be a difficult and sometimes a daunting task. 

WISE investigators have mastered key interviewing techniques and have extensive experience in conducting investigative interviews across industries. We have developed a comprehensive guide to steer HR professionals and investigators through the process. Purchase our book Investigative Interviewing: A Guide for Workplace Investigators for the best tips on successful interview techniques.

How to Write Letters of Notification and Allegation

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, July 17, 2019

During the process of conducting workplace investigations, it is generally necessary to prepare letters of notification, and later, letters of allegation. 

We take a look at the difference between the two, and provide some tips on how to prepare these important documents. 

notifying the parties involved

The letter of notification serves as confirmation that an investigation is going to be launched. These formal documents are sent to the respondent, the complainant and any witnesses involved in the investigation. 

It communicates how the process of the investigation will occur, who will be conducting it, as well as detailing the involvement required from the individuals.

For the complainant, this will generally mean the formalisation of their complaint and participation in an interview. A respondent will also need to undergo a formal interview and be advised of their rights, such as having a support person attend. 

A letter of notification should ideally be prepared and sent as soon as an investigation plan has been finalised.

the elements of a letter of notification

When writing a letter of notification, it is important that it contains specific details including:

  • What exactly is being investigated.
  • Who is conducting the investigation. It is important to identify which members of the organisation will be involved.
  • A formal request for interview. 
  • The offer of a support person to all parties who will be interviewed.
  • A reminder for all parties involved to maintain confidentiality around the process, and the potential consequences of a failure to do so. 

Writing letters of allegation

Although similar to a letter of notification, a letter of allegation contains more detailed information. Instead of being addressed to all the parties involved, only the respondent will receive a letter of allegation. 

The letter should clearly set out: 

  • Details and particulars of the allegations. This information should be as specific as possible, to give the respondent a genuine opportunity to respond to the allegations. 
  • A request for supporting documents. The respondent should be advised of the opportunity to provide any information or evidence supporting their position. 
  • A formal request for interview. Although this has already been identified in the letter of notification, the letter of allegation reiterates the requirement for participation in the interview process. The letter should also reiterate the right of the respondent to have a support person involved in the process. 
  • The letter is required to stipulate if there is a finding of misconduct, what disciplinary actions may be considered and imposed. 
  • A further reminder of the need to maintain confidentiality.  

A letter of allegation should be sent after the complainant has been formally interviewed. This means that detailed allegations can be put to the respondent. 

Do's and do not's when preparing letters of allegations

When preparing a letter of allegations, it is important that procedural fairness is maintained. The respondent should have only clear allegations put to them, supported with evidence where available of the conduct or behaviour alleged. 

The letter of allegation should avoid making any conclusions about the investigation. 

Importantly, it should also demonstrate that the investigators and decisions-makers involved are objective. 

Communication with the parties to a workplace investigation is critical in ensuring a fair and considered approach is taken. Failing to comply with the steps of procedural fairness can impact on the soundness of investigation outcomes, findings and recommendations and leave employers open to decisions being overturned. 

WISE Workplace provides training in investigating workplace misconduct. This training is aimed at providing practical skills that enable you to draft procedurally fair and legally compliant letters of notification and allegations.   

Receiving Workplace Complaints

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, July 03, 2019

Employers should be well aware of the legal and associated requirements that come into play when someone in the workplace raises their hand with a grievance. 

Complaints about unacceptable and/or inappropriate behaviour can arise from any work area, and in regard to a wide variety of issues. Grievance handling needs to be fair and consistent - yet with each situation being approached on an individual basis. 

We take a look at creating a sound process for the receipt of complaints, which reflects and follows existing policies and procedures.

types of complaints

Complaints can be made in relation to all manner of behaviours. Examples include allegations of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment and even - in workplaces involving children - child abuse. 

Harassment itself covers a wide range of behaviours that could occur on or offsite, including those via digital communication such as email, social media platforms and messaging. 

Employers should note that alleged perpetrators can be colleagues, managers and even occasionally worksite personnel such as contractors.

steps to take when receiving a complaint 

For employers it can sometimes be difficult to know just where to begin once a complaint has been received. At a basic level, all internal procedures and policies should be carefully followed to ensure fairness and consistency. 

A clear and well-understood complaints process needs to be in place prior to the (inevitable) receipt of a workplace complaint. All those involved should receive even-handed treatment, with any decisions being made in a defined and measured way. 

In some instances, the alleged behaviour will constitute reportable conduct, with an employer obliged to notify a specified body about the allegation under a compulsory reporting regime. 

As society comes to grips with some of the behaviours that can occur in relation to our most vulnerable individuals, more stringent reporting requirements for employers continue to be developed. For example, the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been designed to ensure that employers take timely and objective steps upon receipt of any relevant complaint

key principles when responding to complaints 

In the case of complaints, it pays to ask some basic questions about the situations such as:

  • Is the behaviour unacceptable or not?
  • Does the situation warrant measures to minimise the risk of ongoing harm?
  • Do I have a clear understanding of the issues?
  • Do I need additional information or assistance?
  • Can the matter be safely resolved between the parties or at a team level?
  • Should the matter be progressed to an investigation? 

A key issue is the manner in which the people involved in a complaint are treated and how any required information is communicated.

At all times, employers should take the matter seriously, refrain from victimising any individual and ensure the same treatment for all personnel involved.

Confidentiality should be maintained at all times and support mechanisms put in place for what is, inevitably, a difficult time in the workplace. 

Taking the right approach

It is vital for employers to be aware of their legal obligations and best practice when it comes to addressing workplace complaints. Complaint handling can become quite complex depending on the type of complaints and the number of people involved. 

WISE provides professional and up-to-date training on conducting workplace investigations. Our courses are specifically designed for those engaged in the investigation of workplace misconduct, including bullying and harassment. Please call us if you would like expert assistance around complaints processing and the best way to ensure fairness if - and when - a workplace complaint is received.  In addition keep an eye out over the next seven weeks, as we will be publishing a series of articles, in which we examine the workplace investigation process. 

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 Right Mix: Professionalism, Impartiality and Empathy

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, April 17, 2019

When conducting a workplace investigation, it is essential that there is consideration given to maintaining an appropriate balance between professionalism, impartiality and empathy. 

By ensuring that this balance is maintained, employers are best able to protect the interests of staff, and safeguard against allegations of inappropriate conduct during the investigatory stage. 

the need for professionalism

It is essential that professionalism carries through in all aspects of a workplace investigation. A failure to conduct the process appropriately could have far-reaching consequences for an employee - resulting in disciplinary action or even dismissal and for the employer in cases where the process, procedures and findings are legally challenged. 

Professionalism requires investigators to:

  • Ensure confidentiality - Keep any information that is disclosed or otherwise discovered during the investigatory process completely confidential. 
  • Communicate clearly - This means ensuring that all involved parties have a clear understanding of the process, the information that is required and anything else that can be expected as part of the investigation. 
  • Act with competence - When undertaking investigations into an employee's conduct, it is crucial that the investigator is thorough and performs all aspects of the role correctly and appropriately. This includes planning the investigation, conducting interviews and analysing the evidence. 

staying impartial in workplace investigations

Investigations must be impartial for the same reason they need to be professional. The investigator must try as much as possible to collect and analyse objective information and make a decision on that basis, not on personal feelings or subjective factors. 

In order to avoid perceptions of bias, all efforts should be made to ensure that there is no real or perceived conflict of interest between the person conducting the investigation and other people involved in the investigation, such as the complainant or the accused.

Staff who are known in the workplace to be particularly good friends (or particularly adversarial) with each other should not be involved in the same investigation other than as a witness. This may also extend to staff investigating their own direct reports. 

If your business is too small or otherwise structured in a way which makes it complicated for investigations to occur with impartiality, engaging a professional workplace investigator can help ensure an independent and unbiased process.

the value of empathy

Apart from just generally being the right thing to do, there is some real value in being empathetic with staff during the investigation process. 

Showing empathy in the workplace investigation context is likely to result in greater cooperation from witnesses and greater accuracy in statements. For example, most employees do not want to get one of their co-workers into trouble. By empathising with those staff and noting that they do not want anybody to get fired or have adverse consequences as a result of the interview, investigators can build up a greater rapport. 

It can also reassure those involved that investigators understand what they are going through, and that they will be supported through the process. An employee who has to make a complaint against somebody at work, or an employee having to deal with the consequences of a complaint and the potential disciplinary repercussions can suffer significant stress and trauma. This can have far-reaching consequences in the workplace.    

maintaining the balancing act

The three pillars of professionalism, impartiality and empathy are key to conducting a successful workplace investigation, but these can often be difficult to achieve in the average office. For this reason, you may wish to rely on external investigators to ensure that all key elements of a proper workplace investigation are fulfilled. If your organisation needs assistance with investigations, WISE offers both full and supported investigation services, or training for your staff.

When to Use an External Investigator

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, April 03, 2019

Using in-house resources to sort out organisational problems certainly makes a lot of sense. HR departments tend to be well equipped to receive and manage internal complaints, facilitating solutions as they go. 

But while sourcing external assistance can seem unnecessary, there are certain serious workplace situations where calling in specialist investigative expertise will be the preferable solution.  

Internal or external: making the decision

When an event in the workplace requires investigation, questions arise that require timely answers. One of these will be - who should carry out the investigative process? Less impactful events such as personal differences, disputes or general rumours might naturally fall to an internal workplace investigator. After all, they will have inside knowledge of the culture and dynamics that possibly led to these ripples and allegations. 

Yet when alleged events are more serious in nature and/or the scope of the problem is potentially vast, engaging the expertise of a specialist external workplace investigator can not only relieve the internal workload. It can also mean the difference between smooth resolution of a workplace situation - or the unfortunate escalation of a matter into the costly adversarial realm. The more serious the allegation, the more important it can be to secure professional advice.    

workplace investigations - pitfalls to avoid

Whether internal or external, workplace investigators work hard to carry out investigations fairly and efficiently. In a well-run investigation, all involved will be treated in a professional and objective manner, with no overt bias towards one party or another. 

Yet unfortunately perceived bias can be just as damaging to the final collated report. One pitfall with using an internal investigator is that a perception might arise that one party was favoured over another, due to position, workplace friendship, or longevity within the organisation - just as examples. 

Similarly, if an internal workplace investigation is rushed or not provided with sufficient resources, outcomes can be similarly tarnished. It can be tempting to keep things in-house in order to save money. Yet in the long run, the overall quality of the investigative report can be tarnished, leading to the high likelihood of expensive actions by the aggrieved party.  

the expert investigator 

A further consideration when deciding whether to engage an internal or external investigator is the level of expertise. Invariably, internal investigators have other tasks and roles that take up their time in organisations. 

This is not the case for external workplace investigators. As trained professionals they have the in-depth specialist experience and up-to-date knowledge that is necessary for a fair and impartial investigation. For example, maintaining confidentiality within and across the workplace is a challenging task. An external investigator has the ability to coordinate the process in such a way as to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of all discussions.

The investigator's capability is particularly important when it comes to both the finality and reliability of the investigative report. Should an appeal of the decision eventuate, commissions, tribunals and courts will expect to see a level of thoroughness and objective detail that demonstrates adherence to the principles of procedural fairness throughout. 

In the 2017 matter of Anthony King v The Trustee for Bartlett Family Trust T/A Concept Wire Industries [2017], the Fair Work Commission certainly made it clear that imperfect investigations will be viewed dimly, stating: 'some investigation reports seen by the Commission in this jurisdiction fail to get to the heart of such a situation and rarely undertake a true balancing of the evidence seen by them'. 

Support and expertise

Yet it need not be a black-and-white choice between an internal or external workplace investigator. It is possible to access a supported investigation service. In this framework, the organisation gains assistance from an expert regarding the more complex aspects of the process, while carrying out other tasks internally. 

WISE Workplace is able to offer both full and supported investigation services. If you are concerned about making an error or a lack of knowledge in conducting your own investigation, or would like to train your staff in conducting workplace investigations, contact WISE today.  

Putting the 'Reasonable Person' to the Test

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, December 19, 2018

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

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

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

What is the reasonable person test?

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

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

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

a practical application of the test

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

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

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

WHAT can we learn from this?

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

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

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

obtaining assistance with investigations 

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

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