How Fact-Finding and Disciplinary Investigations Differ

Vince Scopelliti - Tuesday, February 25, 2020

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

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

fact-finding vs formal investigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

communicating the process to the employees involved

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

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

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

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

what happens when the line becomes blurred

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

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

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

Sacked on Leave: Procedural Fairness and Unfair Dismissal

Natasha Kennedy-Read and Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, February 19, 2020

The rules around when staff can be terminated while they are on leave can be a source of consternation for management and human resources professionals. 

The consequences of getting it wrong are demonstrated in the recent Fair Work Commission decision of Tuan Nguyen v Adelaide Fencing and Steel Supplies Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 79 (30 January 2020). 

In this case, the employer was ordered to pay compensation to an employee deemed to have been unfairly terminated. 

The Facts of the matter

Mr Nguyen was a business manager for Adelaide Fencing and Steel Supplies who was dismissed from his employment following allegations of fraud and dishonesty associated with the supply of products to a customer. 

Following his termination, he lodged an application for unfair dismissal, arguing that the seriousness of the allegations levelled against him were not supported by the available evidence. 

Although the Commission found that there was legitimate cause for concern about Mr Nguyen’s reckless conduct, and he had been validly terminated, it was ultimately held that due process had not been followed in effecting the termination. 

This was because Mr Nguyen was found not to have been given prior warning or a “genuine opportunity” to deal with the serious substance of the allegations, particularly given as Mr Nguyen was on extended sick leave at the time of the termination. 

Accordingly, the dismissal was found to have been harsh, unreasonable and unfair, with the Commission ordering compensation in the sum of $10,000. 

key lessons employers can learn

Employers should take note of a few key principles which underpinned the decision in Nguyen, namely:

  • The Commission expects employers to provide a “fair go all round”. In practice, this means that decisions in relation to employment status cannot be made arbitrarily. Instead, they must take into account a balanced, practical and common sense method to ensure that both the employer and the employee are treated fairly. Notably, this includes an opportunity to respond to allegations made against the employee by the business.
  • Procedural fairness is king. Although it is certainly understandable that employers wish to exit staff who are underperforming or otherwise breaching workplace practices or even the law as expeditiously as possible, there is no excuse to “rush” the process, at the cost of following due process. This means providing employees with clearly articulated warnings, notice of the reasons for dismissal, ensuring a legitimate and practical opportunity has been given for them to respond, and permitting the employee to have a support person of their choosing attend any interviews. 
  • In addition, objectivity is crucial. When making decisions as to ongoing employment, it is essential that the results of any investigation can stand up to objective standards of evidence, and will not be undermined by allegations of subjectivity or bias. 
  • Take your time. Unless there are urgent reasons to immediately terminate employees (such as serious criminal activity), there is no benefit in terminating too quickly. This is especially the case when employees are on sick leave, as in most cases the Commission will determine that due process has not been followed in dealing with those staff. 
  • Engage in performance management early. Although there may be a concern that a documented performance management process will further alienate an unhappy or recalcitrant employee, engaging in this process at appropriate times and in a correct fashion will bolster any ultimate termination, should this become necessary. It also affords the employer a reasonable management defence when challenged. 
In unfair dismissal claims, the Commission will prioritise “a fair go all round” and not hesitate to find in favour of an applicant (notwithstanding that they may have engaged in legitimate misconduct) if procedural fairness is not followed. To ensure procedural fairness when dealing with misconduct, contact WISE for resources, expert advice and independent, unbiased investigation services.


How to Navigate Counter Allegations in Investigations

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

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

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

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

Divide ALLEGATIONS into separate incidents

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

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

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

keep procedural fairness top of mind 

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

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

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

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

The civil standard of proof

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

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

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

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

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

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

It can be challenging for investigators when presented with counter allegations. If you want to ensure that you are undertaking investigations effectively, WISE provides a range of skills-based short courses for investigators, as well as formal qualifications such as Certificate IV and Diploma in Government Investigations.



Racial Discrimination at Work

Natasha Kennedy-Read and Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, February 05, 2020

We are all familiar with the more obvious signs of workplace discrimination; but with targeted racism and xenophobia spreading faster than the Coronavirus, it is vital to be aware of the more nuanced and subtle acts of discrimination at work. 

Queensland has seen MP Duncan Pegg slam a phoney health department bulletin that warned online communities to avoid areas with high proportions of Chinese residents. In France, East-Asian communities began the now global #imnotavirus campaign, highlighting discriminatory comments from “are you dangerous if you cough?” to “stop eating wild animals then infecting everyone around you.” 

This problem is not new. In Canada in 2003, a similar wave of outbreak-fuelled xenophobia cost Toronto an estimated C$1bn, prompting public health officials to remind Canadians not to let ignorance triumph over respect in their communities.  

This viral endemic has already had a global impact on small businesses, schools and communities around the world, and workplaces are far from immune. Queensland surgeon Dr Rhea Liang said that “misinformation” on the virus has led to racially motivated remarks such as were made to her at work last week. Dr Liang’s patient refused her routine handshake, saying “you might have coronavirus” in front of her colleagues and several medical students. 

Most Australian workers are not at significant risk of infection, and employers and employees alike should be aware of the legal pitfalls they may encounter, and harm they may inflict, in attempts to protect themselves from the virus. In Dr Liang’s case, her colleagues were immediately supportive, but she worries about more vulnerable people exposed to racism that results from the stereotyping. 

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his or her race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin or immigrant status. This extends to expressions of racial hatred against another person, and discriminating in the provision of services, entertainment and facilities or on less favourable terms and conditions. 

WHAT Does this mean for you?

We are all familiar with the obvious signs of racial or xenophobic discrimination, like slurs, segregation, targeted aggression and spreading racist rumours. Refusing to serve or deterring customers on the basis of their nationality or race, out of fear of Coronavirus is also an obvious and unlawful form of discrimination. However as a modern employer, it’s important to recognise the more subtle and nuanced forms of racism which can go unnoticed, and therefore be more damaging than overt behaviours. 

It is likely that racism at work is vastly underreported. 20% of Australians experience racism every year, but the Australian Human Rights Commission receives just several hundred racial discrimination complaints annually. 
More subtle and dangerous examples of discrimination include:

  • Xenophobic or racist ostracism of, or hostility towards, colleagues or customers in their workplace.
  • Avoiding contact or proximity with, or hostile body language towards people on the basis of their skin colour or nationality 
  • Unintentional or subconscious behaviour 

Subconscious biases and assumptions, even with positive intentions regarding safety or risk to others can all be considered racist behaviour. 

Prevention is always better than cure, and as an employer, workplace culture starts with you. If you are worried about your workplace culture, contact us to organise a Cultural Review. 

SO, how can i prevent racial discrimination from infiltrating my workplace? 

Education: 

Education on racial discrimination at work empowers employee understanding, sensitivity and conversation. Training programs are an important tool for eliminating more subtle discriminatory behaviours, by highlighting the nuanced nature of racial and cultural experience and necessity for sensitivity, and avoiding unintentional or subconscious infliction of harm. This can not only reduce incidences of discrimination but also create a positive culture where employees support each other, demonstrate and monitor their own standards of conduct and can minimise the emotional and psychological impact of external harm to their peers.

Conversation:

Creating space for productive conversations about race and discrimination at work is vital to a positive workplace culture. To encourage employee participation and make the most of these conversations, frame them in a positive and constructive way.

Outline the purpose and goals of the conversations from the outset:

  • Discuss views and experiences relating to racism in a non-judgmental and safe environment 
  • Learn from each other’s experiences and gain understanding that people experience racism in different ways
  • Reflect on intention and how we can unintentionally cause racial harm to our peers or colleagues 
  • Identify opportunities for growth within the organisation and develop systems for positive change 

Be prepared to support employees who may lack understanding of the real prevalence of racism and need for proper attention. People who are not part of a minority group are likely to have less experience of racism, so the nuanced nature of modern discrimination might come as a surprise. Constructive conversations can help these team members challenge their preconceptions, and help them to approach the issues with awareness and understanding. 

For tailored, expert and neutral third-party training programs or conversational facilitators to improve your workplace culture and tackle complex issues such as racial or xenophobic discrimination, contact WISE Workplace today. Working with an experienced facilitator or training provider such as WISE minimises the risk of tricky power imbalances countering your efforts to eliminate racial discrimination at work. 




Unfair Dismissal: Case Studies from the FWC

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Perhaps one of the most vexed issues employers face is how to terminate employees without exposing the organisation to the risk of a successful unfair dismissal action. 

In light of the 15 January updates to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) Unfair Dismissals Benchbook, these two unfair dismissal cases at the FWC demonstrate the importance of employers being on safe legal ground before dismissing an employee. This is particularly important in circumstances where successful actions could result in a significant compensatory payment, or the employer being forced to re-hire a terminated staff member.  

1. The sleeping ferry master

In the decision of Sclater v Transdev Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 7968, it was found that a ferry master who fell asleep during his shift had been appropriately terminated and not unfairly dismissed. 

In this matter, Mr Sclater was discovered to be asleep on a bench in the wheelhouse during the course of his shift travelling from the Pyrmont Bay Wharf to McMahons Point Wharf in Sydney. Instead of Mr Sclater, the ship’s engineer Mr Drygajlo was manning the helm. 

It was subsequently discovered that Mr Sclater, who was on numerous different types of medication due to a (disclosed and medically cleared) heart condition, had been taking a cough medicine for approximately a week. 

Despite warnings regarding potential drowsiness, Mr Sclater claimed not to have noticed that part of the label and had suffered no ill effects. However, on the date of Mr Sclater’s transgression, he had forgotten to take his heart medication but remembered to take the cough syrup. As a result, Mr Sclater suddenly felt extremely drowsy and sat down to “close his eyes”. By his own estimation, he was only unconscious for about five minutes.

The employer, Transdev, argued that Mr Sclater had both breached the company’s Drug and Alcohol Policy and had given dishonest evidence about whether he had in fact been asleep, and for how long. Although the FWC did not find any dishonesty in Mr Sclater’s evidence regarding how long he had been asleep, it was concluded that he had breached the relevant policy. 

This was because Mr Sclater: 

  • Did not obtain proper advice from the pharmacist about contraindications with his existing medicine and the cough syrup.
  • Exceeded the prescribed dosage of the cough medicine.
  • Did not read the information about the potential side effects. 

Ultimately, the FWC determined that, given Mr Sclater’s role as ferry master, there was no option but for him to remain fully alert at all times when on duty. His failure to do so in the circumstances meant that he had been validly dismissed.

2. Beers before work

By contrast, in the matter of Morcos v Serco Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 7675, Mr Morcos was reinstated to his employment after being found to have been unfairly dismissed. 

Employed at the Villawood Detention Centre, Mr Morcos was on a rostered day off and had consumed two beers when he received a telephone call and was asked to come in for a shift. He agreed, believing that his blood alcohol concentration would have returned to 0.00 before his shift commenced. However, following a random alcohol test at work, Mr Morcos recorded two readings of 0.037 and 0.032. He was sent home (notably by driving his car!). 

Mr Morcos worked one further shift but was then terminated for breaches of the Drug and Alcohol Policy. 
The FWC found in Mr Morcos’ favour, however, noting that:

  • A blood alcohol reading between 0 and 0.005 could (and at that workplace previously had) result in a written warning and not an immediate termination. 
  • Mr Morcos had consumed a reasonable amount of alcohol on a rostered day off, believing that he would not be required to work after consuming the beers.
  • Mr Morcos was allowed to work the next day for an entire shift and was not subjected to alcohol testing on that occasion. 

The FWC therefore concluded that the nature of Mr Morcos’ alleged misconduct was not sufficiently serious to warrant termination. It ordered the employer to reinstate Mr Morcos to his former role. 

Employers, are you facing an unfair dismissal allegation? WISE investigators are experts in this field. They have years of experience in undertaking even the most complex workplace investigations, and are able to ensure your investigation is fair and legally sound. If your organisation needs assistance with a workplace investigation, WISE provides full as well as supported investigation services.

Whistleblowing in 2020: Is Your Organisation Ready?

Vince Scopelliti - Thursday, January 23, 2020

The concept of whistleblowing was once frowned upon, or at the very least looked upon with trepidation. However, in recent years, the value of promoting whistleblowing as an acceptable way to improve corporate regulatory compliance and culture has been demonstrated. In this changing landscape, organisations are embracing whistleblowing - and many also have new obligations to comply with. 

Is your organisation ready for whistleblowing in 2020? Let's look at who can be a whistleblower; who is authorised to receive disclosures; and which organisations must have a whistleblower platform in place. 

What is whistleblowing?

Whistleblowers are individuals with some connection to an organisation, who choose to report corporate misconduct or illegal activities. 

Legislation, including new legislation which came into force on 1 July 2019, provides extended rights and protections to whistleblowers. Ultimately, the intent of the legislation is to ensure that whistleblowers are protected against reprisals, legal action, or general detriment, such as disciplinary action taken by the employer. 

Whistleblower protection may be afforded to various categories of people, including: 

  • Current employees of a company (or a related company)
  • The spouses or relatives of employees 
  • Officers of a company 
  • Contractors who have dealt with the company (potentially including volunteers)
  • General associates of the company

Whistleblowing also includes public interest disclosures. An example of a public interest disclosure might be an employee making a report about a bank which has been consistently charging members fees for no service. These apply in circumstances where a previous report has been made to ASIC or APRA and not actioned within 90 days, and the whistleblower is of the view that the information is of such importance to the public interest that it would be worthwhile reporting concerns to a journalist or a parliamentarian. 

Alternatively, emergency disclosures may be made if concerned parties have reasonable grounds to believe that the matters to be reported concern substantial or imminent danger to health and safety of people or the environment. 

how the disclosure process works

Disclosure about misconduct may be made anonymously, but must be reported to a specific group of people, including: 

  • Directors, company officers or senior managers
  • Auditors of the company 
  • Actuaries associated with the company 
  • A person specifically authorised to receive disclosures (generally a Human Resources officer) 
  • Regulatory authorities such as ASIC or APRA
  • Legal practitioners

Concerns can be reported internally using pre-determined organisational systems such as phone or online reporting. At the very least, an organisation should publish its whistleblowing policy and identify the people who are entitled to receive reports. 

Within a company, those authorised to receive disclosures must act on disclosures by investigating and protecting whistleblowers. 

WHY IS A WHISTLEBLOWING PLATFORM IMPORTANT?

The new legislation means that all public companies, large proprietary companies and corporate trustees of superannuation funds must have a whistleblower policy from January 1, 2020. Large proprietary companies are classed as those that have a consolidated annual revenue of at least $25 million, consolidated gross assets of at least $12.5 million or at least 50 employees.  

In addition to the legislative requirements, there are reasons why all organisations should have a strong platform for whistleblowing. 

These include increasing public and employee confidence in the desire of the organisation to “do the right thing”, and ensuring that senior personnel are safe in the knowledge that, if anybody is committing wrongdoing, staff and related persons can be confident to report those matters without fear of reprisals. 

One of the most effective ways to deal with whistleblowers is to set up an external hotline. This means that reports can be made anonymously. People can avoid potential embarrassment or concerns about making a report in circumstances where they potentially see the people whose conduct they are reporting on a daily basis.

WISE is a leading provider of whistleblowing services in Australia, offering organisations a secure service known as ‘Grapevine’ for staff to report concerns. 

Grapevine allows for anonymous reporting via phone call or online report. Reporters are enabled to provide supporting evidence, and can also choose whether to remain anonymous or leave their contact details. Each report is assigned a case number so it can be tracked throughout the whistleblowing and assessment process. Reports are reviewed by a highly trained and experienced team, and the organisation's nominated contact person is notified within 24 hours. Updates are available online. Depending on the level of service, the Grapevine team can also follow up and take action according to an organisation's whistleblower policy.

For more information on complying with whistleblower legislation, please download our free whistleblowing whitepaper which can answer your questions regarding the changes. If you would like an obligation-free cost estimate to implement a confidential hotline in your workplace, contact us here.

Managing Volunteers in the Workplace

Vince Scopelliti - Thursday, January 16, 2020

Volunteers can be a fabulous resource in any business. Generally, they bring enthusiasm, true passion for the organisation's ethos and purpose, and a "can-do" attitude to the job.

However, volunteers in the workplace can also bring their own set of challenges for organisations. Even though they are not on the payroll, volunteers enjoy the same protections as paid workers are entitled to. Indeed, the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) defines volunteers as "workers", thereby putting them on equal footing.

So let's look at some tips and tricks for managing volunteers in the workplace.

Employee and volunteer conflict

One of the risks inherent in relying on volunteers is conflict with employees. In part, this may be due to a "us against them" perception. Further, staff who are employed in the business on a daily basis, may perceive that volunteers have less of an understanding or practical knowledge of how tasks should be completed, or how things are done. Employees may also resent the apparent flexibility afforded to volunteers. A pertinent example is the longstanding feud between paid and volunteer Country Fire Authority staff in Victoria, which resulted in the CFA being devolved into a volunteer-only organisation in early 2019.

Difficulties managing volunteer conflict

In addition to the everyday personnel issues facing organisations, additional challenges involving volunteers include:

  • An unwillingness of volunteers to raise concerns or "rock the boat", largely due to the fact that they may already feel isolated or otherwise segregated from employees. Any conflicts or issues may not be raised with management, for fear of reprisals or concerns about not being taken seriously.
  • A lack of understanding of protections. Many volunteers may not be aware that they are entitled to the same protections as paid staff, and may consider it pointless to raise any conflicts or concerns with management.
  • Lower priority for the organisation. Even if volunteers do raise concerns, management may deal with these issues less expeditiously, because volunteers could be perceived as being easily replaceable. 

responsibilities of volunteer-active workplaces

Employers who rely on volunteers or who are considering welcoming them into the workplace, have a duty of care to provide a safe work environment. They must therefore take steps to protect volunteers from bullying and harassment.

In the same fashion, employers remain vicariously liable for volunteer's conduct and behaviour. For example, if a volunteer engaged in an activity on behalf of the organisation and negligently or otherwise causes injury to a third party, the employer could be found liable. This is despite the absence of any financial relationship between the volunteer and the business.

Organisations need to ensure that policies are updated (where required) to identify that they also encompass volunteer staff. Volunteers should be provided with copies of all policies, and their workplace rights and obligations should be clearly communicated.

When commencing a relationship with a volunteer, it is also important to ensure that there are very clear volunteer engagement "Agreements" in place. These should be carefully drafted to ensure that both parties are well aware of their rights and obligations under the agreement.

Volunteer-based organisations, like all workplaces, have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for all their workers. All conflict and alleged misconduct should be taken seriously, whether it relates to paid staff and/or volunteers. If your organisation needs assistance managing a challenging workplace conflict, WISE offers both supported and full investigation services to provide you with the flexibility you need. 

Managing Misconduct over the Holidays

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, December 18, 2019

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

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

When are employees still 'at work'?

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

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

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

defining misconduct in the workplace

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

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

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

why is there a prevalence of misconduct over the holidays?

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

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

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

mitigating the risk of misconduct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Managing Risks in Workplace Investigations

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, December 11, 2019

managing risks in workplace investigations?

By its very nature, a workplace investigation involves sensitive and contentious information.

When a workplace investigation is required, whether this is outsourced to an external investigator or conducted in-house, it is necessary to be aware of the risks which could eventuate.

What are the key risks?

These include: 

  • Potential Breaches of confidentiality

Each party involved has the right to confidentiality. A breach of confidentiality occurs when other people/ parties are made aware of the investigation, which could cause "injury" to the complainant or the accused. Types of injury include reprisal, injury to reputation, defamation, ostracising the employee, physical altercations, or the exacerbation of mental health issues such as depression or anxiety. Of course, this is not an exhaustive list of consequences that could arise if confidentiality is breached.

  • Failing to take "timely and determinative" action

In a situation where disciplinary action such as dismissal is ultimately required, delaying action could potentially prejudice the company's position in any subsequent legal proceedings. This is because a tribunal is likely to find that, if the behaviour was sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal, it would/should have been dealt with as soon as possible. Further, if matters remain open and are not dealt with in an appropriate timeframe, there are greater chances of the issue causing conflict, uncertainly and humiliation within the workplace.

  • Risk of litigation
In matters where the actions and integrity of individuals are likely to be called into question, the risk of litigation is always significant. It is crucial that steps be taken at all times to minimise this risk, or position the company in such a way that it has a defence towards any litigation. 

  • Risk of further costs

Certainly, in situations where a company tries to save on costs by minimising the expenses of investigations, and subsequently needs to "fix" the investigation by engaging external investigators or solicitors, expenses are likely to increase. In many cases, it is better to incur appropriate fees and expenses at the outset, rather than having to pay reparatory costs.

How can you mitigate these risks?

In order to minimise the risks associated with investigations, it is prudent to follow a consistent process for each and every one. This includes:
  • Having a process map, which identifies what evidence should be obtained and which witnesses should be interviewed. 
  • The collation and review of evidence by the investigator. 
  • Interviews being conducted by an investigator, who also catalogues facts.
  • Analysis of the information acquired, in addition to determining if additional fact-finding will be necessary.
  • A determination, made by the investigator and relevant parties based on a review of the findings. Internal stakeholders will work with the investigator to determine how best to communication the decision to concerned parties. 
  • A resolution, where the investigator will document the steps and actions taken. The investigator will also arrange required follow-ups with involved parties to ensure that effective remediation has occurred as planned. 
In addition, it is essential to ensure the investigative process is comprehensive and compliant with the requirements of procedural fairness, as well as sticking to the principles of confidentiality. 

By following these steps, a company ensures that, even if litigation becomes inevitable, it is "court ready" and has a legally sound investigative process and findings which it can demonstrate to lawyers. 

Additional steps to minimise the risks of an investigation being challenged include:

1. Ensuring that all allegations are particularised before they are provided to a respondent. By doing this, a company ensures that a respondent cannot say that they were ambushed or otherwise unable to prepare a defence. 

2. Providing clear and transparent information about the investigation process, including how and when it will occur. A respondent should never be engaged in informal interviews as a way to test the waters, as this could result in subsequent complications. By the same token, arranging for external investigators from the outset can substantially lessen risks such as allegations of bias against internal investigators. 

3. Ensuring that nothing suggests that a 'predetermined outcome' has been arrived at. This includes removing any wording such as "bullying" from the complaint document. Instead, such matters should be framed, for example, as "allegations of alleged bullying".

4. Effectively balancing the need of timeliness in the investigatory process against ensuring that respondents have sufficient time to respond allegations. 

If you are concerned about the investigation process at your workplace, you can take simple and active steps to address these concerns. WISE Workplace is an expert within the field of workplace investigations and also offers training for your staff. 
 

Rules of Evidence in Workplace Investigations

Vince Scopelliti - Wednesday, December 04, 2019

Although workplace investigations are not expected to be conducted in the same way as a police investigation, it is essential to keep in mind the principles of evidence which might apply. This is particularly important against a backdrop where many workplace investigations end up in the Fair Work Commission or otherwise in a contentious, litigated setting.

We examine the rules of evidence which should be followed to improve the chances of successfully defending against a claim.    

What are the rules of evidence as a whole? 

The most important rule for workplace investigations is whether the evidence to be presented is relevant to the matters at issue. As the decision of Robinson v Goodman [2013] FAC 893 demonstrates, this is determined by considering whether the evidence is of such relevance as to be "important or of consequence". In other words, it should "affect the probability of the existence, or non-existence, of a fact in issue".

The principle of hearsay evidence is also important to workplace investigations, as is the introduction of tendency evidence. 

Hearsay relates to information obtained via rumour or through a second party. In a courtroom setting, information is deemed to be hearsay in virtually any circumstance where it has not been directly conveyed to the person testifying about it. In the investigatory setting, any hearsay evidence can be damaging to the weight placed on that evidence or testimony as a whole.

Tendency evidence considers whether past behaviour should be used to prove the current matters in question. When determining whether to rely on tendency evidence, it is important to weigh up the potential advantage against the possibility of causing damage to an accused by suggesting that their past behaviour dictates their future behaviour. 

why do the rules of evidence matter 

Any workplace investigation should be conducted having regard to the possibility that the matter could end up in the Fair Work Commission or a court. In the event that this occurs, any investigation which has clearly failed to observe basic rules of evidence may result in an adverse finding against the employer. 

If an investigation relies on evidence that is ultimately inadmissible, then the employer might find itself in a position where it cannot back up its defence in any way which the commission or a court will take into account. 

An additional factor to be taken into account is the Briginshaw principle.  This notes that, depending on the seriousness of any given allegation, the strength of the evidence required to establish proof may change. This means that a tribunal must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the information before it and on which it is being asked to decide is based on clear, cogent and strict evidence. 

The requirement for a matter to be determined on the balance of probabilities is reaffirmed in section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

The importance of following the rules of evidence in workplace investigations cannot be understated.  All investigators should consider these rules when collecting and analysing evidence that arises from a workplace matter.

WISE investigators are experts in the field, and with years of experience in undertaking even the most complex workplace investigations, are able to ensure your investigation is fair and legally sound. If your organisation needs assistance with a workplace investigation, WISE provides full as well as supported investigation services.