Logical fallacies and Jumping to conclusions

“All dogs have four legs, my cat has four legs therefore is it a dog”

It is vital in an investigation that finding are based on evidence and sound analysis and reasoning.

This case is an example of Logical fallacies and jumping to conclusions

•  An anonymous complaint is received about a staff member who worked in the office had drinking while at work – no person was named
•  A walk though the office was conducted by the  Manager on Friday afternoon after hours
•  An empty can of beer is found on a table in the office next to the work station/desk of employee Mr John Smith
•  The table is in an open area that many others could access
•  There has been no records of incidents involving John Smith
•  No witnesses came forward
•  No other evidence was forthcoming
•  John had left for the day and would not be returning until the following Monday
•  Before gathering any other evidence the company forced entry into John’s locker to see if any alcohol was present
•  The company has a zero tolerance attitude to alcohol in the workplace

Is there sufficient evidence to search John’s locker? – That will depend on the company policy

Is there sufficient evidence to proceed against John as disciplinary?

•  When interviewed John admits that it was his can that he brought in as part of the recycling drive
•  John states the can was empty when he brought it into the workplace
•  John denies drinking beer in the workplace
•  The can only contained a few residue droplets of beer
•  The policy states that no alcohol is permitted on sight
•  It is silent on containers

The HR advisor who conducted the investigation stated,

• The can smelt of beer
• The residue was not tested
• The policy only talked about alcohol
• The drug and alcohol policy only referenced alcohol
• John was issued with a warning in relation to breaching the drug and alcohol policy
• The organisation considered terminating John’s employment even though he had been employed for 28 years with an unblemished record 

The HR adviser admitted that;

• The liquid in the can was not tested Therefore it could not be conclusively proved that the liquid remaining in the can was beer.
• The drug and alcohol policy only referred to alcohol not containers that may contain alcohol

John accepted the warning the matter only came to light later when a complaint was made against the HR advisor in relation to this and other matters.

Outcome of the investigation into actions of the HR advisor;

• The adverse finding against John as a result of the finding of the investigation was not be supported by evidence
• The HR acted in good faith however a lack of training and understanding of the nature of evidence caused the incorrect conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.
• The conclusion based on “It smelled like beer, it was in a beer can therefore it must be beer” could not be proven.
• It was recommended that the HR advisor undertake investigation training

This case should be viewed as a warning when engaging in disciplinary action organisations must ensure that they have the evidence to support a finding in an investigation that results disciplinary action that is taken.

If your organisation conducts internal investigations it is highly recommended about your investigators under tight workplace investigation training, such as the AWPTI Conducting Workplace Investigations full course.

The course can be conducted internally for organisations had a flat right with no limit on attendees details are here

For more details including the cost and inclusions please contact AWPTI – enquiries@awpti.com.au

for organisations with a small number of HR professionals we regularly run open courses that is recommended if you only have one or two people that you wish to undertake the training, this is the most cost effective method the details are here