Why is Reasonable Management Action training important?

Complaints against managers by employees are often as a result of the employee claiming that they were bullied and/or harassed by their manager.

In general, such complaints are either as a result of;

  1. Actual bullying and harassment
  2. Management action involving performance management or feedback
  3. Other forms of management action or supervision.

Complaints against managers for sexual harassment, discrimination or other forms of misconduct are generally more specifically related to an incident or series of incidents or behaviours.

To assist managers and HR professionals we have created the Reasonable Management Action manual that is concise and easy to absorb as we realise that managers and HR professional do not have all day to read long winded publications.

The manual is not a theoretical publication but rather a guide to be used when dealing with employees and conducting of performance management. For more details or to order – http://awpti.com.au/reasonable-management-action-manual/

As the understanding of Reasonable Management Action is such a critical area for managers and HR professionals, AWPTI offers options in addition to this manual.

Face to Face Training with AWPTI Principal Phil O’Brien – The Management Essentials program is designed to assist managers to deal with employment related issues. It comprises of three sections;

  1. Reasonable Management Action,
  2. Performance Management,
  3. Dealing with Misconduct and Employee Complaint Handling for Managers

This training is recommended for all managers/team leaders/supervisors to help minimise costly and time-consuming complaints against managers – more details http://awpti.com.au/management-training/ – price on application.

Phil has delivered this training session to a large number of corporate, State and Federal government clients.

The benefit of the face to face training is that participants are expertly guided through the learning materials and also get to hear the war stories and ask questions of a highly experienced workplace investigator.

DIY training

It may be the case that you wish to deliver the training yourself but don’t want or can’t find a suitable online package.

We have clients who are based all over Australia and it is more economical for them to purchase the Management Essential Training package and deliver it themselves.

The package includes

  • A comprehensive participant workbook (over 125 pages)
  • A companion trainer workbook with additional notes, including notes on all the case studies
  • A PowerPoint presentation covering the material in the workbook
  • Regular updates to the workbook, as we update cases in Courts and tribunals as they happen

Details of the package and how to order are here – http://awpti.com.au/management-training/

For more details on workplace misconduct including bullying harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination please refer to the AWPTI Workplace Misconduct Manual – http://awpti.com.au/workplace-misconduct-manual/

AWPTI – workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide

Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/
http://awpti.com.au/training/

 

Workplace Investigation Procedural Fairness fail.

Workplace Investigation Procedural Fairness fail – employee awarded $40,977.30 in compensation

Employee Dismissal Unfair Because employee was not afforded Procedural Fairness – Michael Ramsey applied for an unfair dismissal remedy (Link to case Ramsey v Trustee for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta [2017] FWC 223) following his summary dismissal as an IT Project Manager in CatholicCare Social Services. Mr Ramsey was terminated following an incident where it was alleged that he physically shoved Ms Rashada, the Manager of People & Culture.

Before this incident, other issues had arisen which involved Mr Ramsey, including the disconnection of the NBN service (as a result of administrative errors on documents overseen by Mr Ramsey) and a significant virus attack upon the CatholicCare networks. In addition Mr Ramsey had also taken a period off work after aggravating a neck/back injury that he had sustained during the course of employment in 2013.

At 1pm on 27 April 2016, Mr Ramsey attended the Chancery Office for his scheduled performance review meeting. Ms Rashada, the Manager of People & Culture directed Mr Ramsey to sit down and told him that she would return later. At 4:45pm Mr Ramsey was informed that Ms Rashada was unable to attend the meeting and the meeting was rescheduled. On 29 April 2016, Mr Ramsey attended the Chancery Office for the rescheduled meeting but was told 4 hours later that it was too late for the meeting to be held and it would have to be rescheduled again.

On 2 May 2016, the performance review meeting finally proceeded with Mr Ramsey, Mr Netana (IT Manager), Ms Rashada and Mr Makdessi (HR Manager) present. At this meeting three issues were raised –
1. Mr Ramsey’s neck injury,
2. the administrative error that resulted in the disconnection of the NBN Service
3. the virus attack on the CatholicCare networks.

The outcome of the meeting was that Mr Ramsey was to receive his first warning letter and was required to attend for work at the Chancery Office at Parramatta in the future.

On 6 May 2016, Mr Ramsey received two warning letters. The first warning letter referred to the 2 May meeting. The letter stated that his performance as the CCSS IT Manager had been unsatisfactory, and that immediate improvement was required. The letter stated that Mr Ramsey’s performance would be supported through a formal performance management process.

The second letter referred to Mr Ramsey’s delay in attending the Chancery Office on 4 May 2016. Mr Ramsey had been delayed on this day as he had been requested to assist with a matter in another office. The second letter stated, “failure to improve your attendance to the required standard may result in further disciplinary action or termination of your employment.”

On 6 May 2016, Mr Ramsey was also asked by Mr Netana to sign a performance improvement plan. When Mr Ramsey declined to sign it, Mr Netana told him to take it home and think about it over the weekend.

On 9 May 2016, Mr Ramsey attended for work at the Chancery Office at Parramatta. At about 10.30am a conversation occurred between Mr Netana, Ms Rashada and Mr Ramsey concerning the performance improvement plan. Mr Ramsey persisted in his refusal to sign or engage with the contents of the performance improvement plan. Mr Netana left the room to attend to another matter. Ms Rashada claimed that during the time Mr Netana was absent, the discussion between Mr Ramsey and herself became heated, resulting in Mr Ramsey physically shoving her.

In considering whether Mr Ramsey physically shoved Ms Rashada, Vice President Hatcher noted that he could not be satisfied with the evidence of Ms Rashada, as he did not consider her to be a credible witness. Accordingly, VP Hatcher held that he could not make a positive finding that Mr Ramsey pushed Ms Rashada as a number of possibilities were open in the circumstances.

As VP Hatcher was not satisfied that Mr Ramsey pushed Ms Rashada, he concluded that there was no valid reason for dismissing Mr Ramsey. Further, VP Hatcher noted that Mr Ramsey was denied procedural fairness and was dismissed by a person lacking both impartiality and authority.

The FWC determined that the dismissal of Mr Ramsey was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The FWC ordered the Trustee for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta to pay Mr Ramsey $40,977.30 in compensation.

Lesson for employers

Decisions in regard disciplinary actions taken as a result of misconduct, poor performance or the outcome of an investigation should be made by an impartial and unbiased party.

AWPTI – workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

Workplace Investigation Procedural Fairness

Workplace Investigation Procedural Fairness – Decisions at the Fair Work Commission where a lack of procedural fairness has proved is costly once again

Two cases before the Fair Work Commission once again highlight that organisations are still having dismissal found as unfair due to a failure to afford an employee procedural fairness

In Schneider v Eliana Construction and Developing Group P/L [2016] FWC 5748  23 August 2016, the applicant Mr Schneider was employed as finance manager; he was dismissed for unsatisfactory conduct. The respondent claimed actions of applicant in submitting BASS statements without Director’s approval caused significant harm to company.

The Commission found that there was no valid reason for dismissal, that the applicant was not put on notice that employment at risk concerning either conduct or performance, he received no written or verbal warnings made and that there was an absence of procedural fairness. It was held that the dismissal unfair and compensation of $16,816 was ordered.

In Moore v Specialist Diagnostic Services P/L t/a Dorevitch Pathology [2016] FWC 5910 23 August 2016, the applicant Ms Moore was employed from July 2003 until April 2016 as pathology collector and promoted to collections co-ordinator. According to a termination letter she was dismissed for failing to follow reasonable directions

The commission found that the applicant not given clear and unambiguous opportunity to respond to reasons for dismissal and that the respondent’s decision maker not given all information to make decision.

In finding that there was no valid reason for dismissal, that the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable and that the applicant was unfairly dismissed the Commission found there was lack of procedural fairness and uncertainty regarding respondent’s reasons for dismissal compensation of $27,900 was ordered.

The lesson for employers

If termination is being contemplated as an option, employers should consider an investigation to establish the full facts of the matter and provide the employee with the opportunity to respond in a timely manner.

The author Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator and trainer who can take the stress out of conducting workplace investigations into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct.

You can contact me on 02 9674 4279 or phil@awpti.com.au

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigators.

AWPTI – workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

 

Support person – workplace investigation

Support person – workplace investigation – All you wanted to know about a support person but were too afraid to ask.

It should be noted that under Section 387 of the Fair Work Act, in subsection “(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow a person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal may be considered as part of the criteria for considering harshness etc.”

Although the FWA refers to unreasonable refusal, I recommend always offering a support person to an interviewee whether it is in relation to a disciplinary or performance related matter. If they refuse record the refusal.

What is a support person?
Someone who attends the interview to provide emotional support to the interviewee if need be.

What is the role of the support person?
Generally it is to sit down and be quiet. However a support person can ask questions of the interviewer and in most cases can provide advice to the interviewee if appropriate but should not answer for the interviewee. They may also speak on behalf of the interviewee if that interviewee is not able to do so.

Please note under some EBA’s the support person mostly union representatives are provided with the authority to advocate on the employee’s behalf. If that is the case you can rest assured that the union rep will let you know.

Who can be a support person?
An adult not involved in the interview or investigation.

Can you refuse the interviewee a support person?
No, not unless you want to fall foul of s387 ss(d).

Can you decide who the support person can be?
No.

Can you decide who the support is not?
Yes, if the person is a witness in the matter, a co-respondent, a child or if the person is apparently unsuitable. In the case of union officials or other officials, if the proposed support person has been the support person for the other party in an investigation.

What happens if the support person is prompting the interviewee?
This can actually be helpful as they may have discussed the matter beforehand and the support person may be helping the interviewee to recall events. The interviewee may be nervous and could tend to forget certain details during the interview. Listen carefully, if it is getting out of hand stop the interview and ensure the support person is aware of their role and boundaries.

What happens if the support person is disruptive?
It is always wise to ensure that the support person is aware of their role and boundaries before commencing the interview. If the support person is disruptive during the interview I recommend the following:

  1. Stop the interview and ensure the support person is aware of their role and boundaries. You may have to do this more than once
  2. If the interview is becoming unworkable, stop the interview and re-schedule it. It might be wise at this time to discuss the choice of support person with the interviewee

Can I eject a support person from the interview if they are becoming too disruptive?
Yes but I don’t recommend it. It could be considered as falling under s387 FWA ss (d). Stop the interview and re-schedule it, discuss the choice of support person with the interviewee.

Can the interviewer have a support person?
Yes and I recommend it if you have a feeling that the interviewee may be difficult.

What can my support person do?
That depends, if they are a co-interviewer they should be taking notes and then ask questions that you may have not or questions that help to clarify matters.

If they are simply there to support you I recommend that your support person should also be taking notes.

Having a support person can help to ensure that complaints are not made against you in regard to the manner in which the interview was conducted.

The author Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator and trainer who can take the stress out of conducting workplace investigations into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct.

You can contact me on 02 9674 4279 or phil@awpti.com.au

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigators.

AWPTI – workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

Procedural Fairness – Workplace Investigation Procedural Fairness – Workplace Investigation – When conducting any misconduct workplace investigation, grievance investigation, performance management or any other disciplinary process it is vitally important that employers ensure that employees involved at afforded procedural fairness. Many unfair dismissal applications are successful at the Fair Work Commission due to the absence […]

Workplace Investigation

Workplace Investigation – what can you do with uncooperative parties during an investigation.

An issue that may be confronted during a workplace investigation is uncooperative parties, complainants, witnesses and the person subject of the complaint (generally referred to as the respondent).

Workplace Investigation – uncooperative respondents

It is important to be careful not to attribute blame or guilt when a person subject of a complaints or misconduct workplace investigation is uncooperative, you must keep an open mind.

Two crucial components of procedural fairness are:
(a) The respondent has the right to know the nature of the complaint or allegations made against them
(b) The respondent has the right to be heard (the right to respondent to the complaint or allegations made against them)

At times adhering to procedural fairness might mean having to be patient.

Generally responses from the person subject of a complaints or a misconduct workplace investigation will come either in written form or the participation in an interview.

Respondents may;

  • Refuse to respond
  • Delay the response providing various reasons why they have not responded
  • Continually ‘roadblock’ the investigation by being unavailable to be interviewed, cancelling interview appointments or not showing up.

What can employers do?

  • Set reasonable deadlines, but be patient and allow some latitude.
  • Listen and take account of the reasons for the cancellation of interviews or delayed responses
  • Re-schedule interview appointments when needed.
  • Work with the respondent, allow them time to prepare.

If the ‘stalling’ is without good reason and continues;

  • Set a final deadline, again be reasonable, (don’t rush the process) but remember that other people may be affected by the investigation and courts and tribunal have criticised organisations for workplace investigations that were not carried out in a timely manner.
  • Advise the respondent that if they fail to respond or attend an interview by the deadline, the investigation will continue and that findings may be made on the information that you currently have on hand.

If the respondent continues to be uncooperative proceed with the investigation.

DOCUMENT EVERYTHING

Workplace Investigation – uncooperative complaints

Although less common than uncooperative respondents I have encountered situations where the complainant is uncooperative, this has been in cases where a written complaint has been made and then the complainant refuses to provide further information and/or be involved in the investigation.

This situation presents a number of problem, please refer to this article that reviews what to do when an employee does not want an investigation into their complaint? http://awpti.com.au/employee-investigation/

In this case I recommend that you proceed with the information you have and advise the complainant that the investigation will continue and that findings may be made on the information that you currently have on hand.

This can cause some difficulties in providing the person subject of the complaint with full details of the complaint or allegation, each case is different, please contact me for assistance phil@awpti.com.au

DOCUMENT EVERYTHING

Workplace Investigation – uncooperative witnesses

Unless you have something in your policy or Code of Conduct that compels employees (which I suggest would be rare) there is little you can do with uncooperative witnesses other than to discuss the reasons why they do not wish to cooperative and reassure them in relation to their concerns if you can.

Bottom line is generally you really can’t compel witness to be part of a workplace investigation.

Support people

Support people themselves are usually not uncooperative however 2 issues can arise usually from the perspective of the respondent;

(1) I can’t get a support person
(2) My support person is not available at…..

It is recommended that you are flexible and have some patience and understand that the support person may also need reasonable notice, however is it not reasonable to unduly hold up the investigation, it may be the case that the party will have to get a different support person.

As I previously stated it is important to remember that courts and tribunal have criticised organisations for workplace investigations that were not carried out in a timely manner and the Fair Work Commission will only take into account unreasonable refusal to allow for a support person.

The author Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator and trainer who can take the stress out of conducting workplace investigations into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct.

You can contact me on 02 9674 4279 or phil@awpti.com.au

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigators.

AWPTI – workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

 

 

Workplace Investigations Sydney NSW

Workplace Investigations Sydney NSW – Workplace Investigations into complaints and grievances and other issues can be a difficult, time consuming and stressful for the parties concerned.

One of the most common difficulties encountered by HR departments, managers and business owners when conducting internal workplace investigations is that virtually everyone involved knows one another or are connected in some way in the business and at times will have competing agendas. Australian Workplace Training & Investigation can assist – www.awpti.com.au

When making a decision to conduct the investigation internally or to outsource it is wise for an employer to ask the following important questions:

  • Do we have someone with the necessary expertise and experience to conduct an investigation?
  • Do we have the time to undertake an investigation that could potentially take up to six weeks?

If the employer is going to conduct an internal investigation or inquiry does the person/s nominated have:

  • Solid experience conducting investigations?
  • Extensive experience conducting investigative interviews?
  • A full understanding of the rules of evidence?
  • An understanding of procedural fairness?
  • A comprehensive understanding of current legislation as it relates to workplace complaints such as misconduct, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination?
  • Experience making finding and recommendations and writing reports that will withstand the scrutiny of an industrial commission, the Fair Work Commission or a court?

Other considerations;

  • Can we ensure;
    • Transparency
    • Independence
    • An absence of Bias
    • An absence of Conflicts of Interest
  • Will the parties involved object to having the matter investigated internally

It is smart business to let an expert handle the workplace investigations for you.

Australian Workplace Training & Investigation can provide investigation services to suit your individual needs and all services are tailored to work within your budget.

Outsourcing a workplace investigation service enables you to concentrate on your business and to allow experienced and qualified investigators handle what we refer to as the ‘dark side of HR’.

Typical area of investigations

  • Complaints and grievances,
  • Bullying
  • Harassment
  • Sexual harassment
  • Discrimination
  • Misconduct
  • Breach of policy or Code of Conduct
  • Inappropriate use of IT or other resources
  • Misuse of social media
  • Fraud or theft.

Investigation review

Where an internal investigation has been conducted we can provide support and review of:

  • Investigation process
  • Findings & recommendations
  • Final report
  • Procedural fairness

We can also assist in the provision of workplace training – http://awpti.com.au/training/

AWPTI – workplace investigations Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations

Workplace training national wide

www.awpti.com.au

FWC Unfair dismissal

The importance of considering other factors when terminating employees

FWC unfair dismissal – A Qantas flight attendant who was sacked for stealing alcohol from a flight and lying about it was awarded $33,731 in compensation by the Fair Work Commission after it found that the decision to terminate his employment was harsh.

Link to case – Dawson v Qantas Airways Limited (2016) FWC 8249 https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2016fwc8249.htm

At the FWC Deputy Commissioner Lawrence concluded that the Applicant Mr Dawson was dismissed because he stole property belonging to Qantas and initially lied about how the alcohol came into his possession, he changed his explanation during an investigation into the matter.

While the amount of alcohol stolen by the Applicant was of small value, Qantas stated that they have a zero tolerance policy to theft including accidental theft. For these reasons, the FWC found that the conduct of the Applicant was a valid reason for termination.

When reviewing the procedural aspects of the termination, the DC Lawrence found that Qantas carried out proper investigation and disciplinary processes. However he also had an obligation to consider “any other matters” to reach a finding as to whether the termination was ultimately harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

As a general rule, the aim of considering what the FWC considers to be “any other matters” it must ensure that a “fair go all round” has been given to all parties.

In this case, the Deputy Commissioner Lawrence considered the factors argued by the Applicant should lead to a finding that his termination by Qantas was disproportionate to the crime committed including;

  • the Applicant’s had worked for Qantas for 28 years with an unblemished record of service as a long-haul flight attendant;
  • the value of the items stolen was small.
  • the age of the Applicant, at 50 it was considered that it would difficult for Mr Dawson to obtain future employment especially as a flight attendant;
  • While the Applicant initially gave an incorrect explanation of his actions, he did correct it later.
  • the Applicant argued that he had a number of medical and family issues prior to the incident.

Notwithstanding that the procedural aspects of the termination were fair and compliant with the Fair Work Act 2009, after taking these “other matters” into account, the Deputy Commissioner Lawrence concluded that the dismissal was harsh.

As a result of Qantas’ failure to properly consider the Applicant’s circumstances and the impact that the termination would have on the Applicant, the FWC felt it appropriate to award the Applicant compensation.

The FWC noted that the Applicant could have earned $1,011,930 for the remainder of his working life. Acknowledging the valid reason for termination and proper procedures, the FWC reduced the amount of compensation to $500,000.

The Applicant’s compensation was reduced again by the FWC to 26 weeks’ pay in accordance with the maximum compensation cap in the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the FW Act.

AWPTI – workplace investigations Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Workplace investigations misconduct, bullying, harassment & sexual harassment investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

The author Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator and trainer who can take the stress out of conducting workplace investigations into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct.

You can contact me on 0409 078 322 or phil@awpti.com.au

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigators.

 

 

Adverse action and award compliance – the cost of getting it wrong

The director of a Melbourne brothel has been ordered to pay a former receptionist compensation and penalties totalling $175,000 after subjecting a former receptionist to unlawful adverse action and failing to pay award entitlements.

In the case of Rosa v Daily Planet Australia Pty Ltd, the Federal Circuit Court accepted that the brothel’s sole director was knowingly involved in breaches and ordered that he was liable for the compensation awarded as well as personally responsible for part of the penalty.

The applicant Ms Rosa worked as a receptionist and had worked for the brothel from July 2008 until December 2011.  Ms Rosa was a single mother and had negotiated particular shifts.  Ms Rosa was paid a flat rate of pay, worked four days per week for 10.5 hours per day.  She was not paid sick leave, annual leave or other benefits beyond her hourly rate.  Further, it was noted she did not take her breaks nor was she paid applicable overtime rates.

After 3 years of employment, Ms Rosa was directed to sign an employment contract which provided that she was a casual employee.  When she challenged the proposed contract terms, her shifts were changed and she was subsequently told there was no more work for her because she didn’t have a manager’s licence that is was claimed was a requirement under the relevant legislation that the business be supervised by an approved manager at all times and Ms Rosa was only a few months away from being eligible to obtain a licence.

In the judgment, the Court noted that Ms Rosa had been employed for a significant period of time without a manager’s licence, yet when there was only two months before she could obtain a manager’s licence she was terminated for this reason.

The Court did not accept the Respondents defence who argued that the provisions of the Sex Work Act 1994 (Vic) that mandated that a brothel must at all times have an “approved manager” on site, and that the reason the Applicant was dismissed was because she did not hold a manager’s licence due to a drug offence

The Court agreed with Ms Rosa’s submissions that the termination occurred as a result of her refusal to sign the employment agreement. This agreement would have converted her employment to casual employment and she risked losing shifts she had specifically negotiated with the Respondent.

The Court found that the Respondent took adverse action in threatening to alter her employment arrangements and threatening to dismiss Ms Rosa and then subsequently dismissing her.

The Daily Planet Case should serve as a reminder to employers that they cannot terminate, threaten termination or detrimentally alter the position of the employee (such as changing an employee’s shifts) on the basis that they chose to exercise a workplace right.

It also reminds employers that the Courts will look to the “motivation” of the employer in its decision to take adverse action against another employee.

AWPTI – workplace investigations Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Workplace investigations misconduct, bullying, harassment & sexual harassment investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

The author Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator and trainer who can take the stress out of conducting workplace investigations into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct.

You can contact me on 002 9674 4279 or phil@awpti.com.au

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigators.