Posts

Social media – unfair dismissal

Singh V Aerocare Flight Support Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 6186

Social media unfair dismissal. A decision by the Fair Work Commission has outlined the issues relating to employees making public comments on Facebook outside of work hours however it has also highlighted the necessity for employer to ensure that matters such as this are properly investigating before jumping to a conclusion.

Mr Nirmal Singh was a casual baggage handler employed by Aerocare Flight Support, an aviation ground handling and services company. It is important to note that Mr Singh possessed an Airport Security Identification Card and was authorised to work within the restricted security-sensitive areas of Perth Airport.

Mr Singh was dismissed by Aerocare after it was discovered by co-workers that he had made posts on Facebook that appeared may have expressed radical views. In one post, Mr Singh linked to an article posted by an Australian Islamic group and included his own commentary, being the words “We all support ISIS.”

Prior to his employment being terminated, Mr Singh attended a meeting with Aerocare management who alleged that his Facebook posts were contrary to the Aerocare social media policy and, given the nature of his job, represented a security risk. Mr Singh claimed that the posts had been sarcastic, that he was opposed to ISIS and extremism, and he was sorry that his posts had been misinterpreted.

That meeting was adjourned to allow Aerocare to review their notes and consider Mr Singh’s explanation. Approximately 10 minutes later, the meeting recommenced and Mr Singh was informed that he would not be offered any further shifts and his employment was effectively terminated.

Mr Singh subsequently made an application to the FWC for unfair dismissal.

In the decision, Commissioner Hunt confirmed that Mr Singh’s post was in breach of Aerocare’s social media policy. It stated that “[it is not] acceptable for employees in the relevant airport environment to post what appears to be support for a terrorist organisation and explain it away as sarcasm, comedy or satire. Mr Singh did a very stupid thing.” The FWC also stated that if Mr Singh had in fact confirmed that he was a supporter of ISIS, it would have no hesitation in finding that the Facebook post was a valid reason for dismissal.

Commissioner Hunt commented that:

  • It was unsatisfactory that Aerocare had failed to properly investigate the complete news feed of Mr Singh’s Facebook account. If time and attention had been taken to review the news feed, Aerocare would have discovered that Mr Singh was not, in fact, a supporter of ISIS.
  • Mr Singh could have been invited to explain his recent Facebook posts to Aerocare, which would have taken no more than 1-2 hours. Such an explanation would have satisfied Aerocare that Mr Singh was not an ISIS supporter. He was not invited to do so.
  • The 10 minute break during the disciplinary meeting was not satisfactory, as it was impossible during that time for Aerocare to have adequately considered all of the issues discussed in the meeting.
  • It would have been appropriate for Aerocare to have continued Mr Singh’s suspension, which would have allowed management to fully consider the issues and to make further inquiries with respect to Mr Singh’s Facebook account.
  • Prior to the meeting, Aerocare decision makers had closed their minds to any explanation from Mr Singh, and they had not considered any sanction other than terminating his employment.

Commissioner Hunt found that there was no valid reason for Mr Singh’s termination and his claim for unfair dismissal was upheld. Mr Singh was awarded compensation the equivalent of 8 weeks’ pay, however that amount was reduced by 40% because of Mr Singh’s misconduct in breaching Aerocare’s social media policy.

This case highlights the importance of conducting through and timely investigations into conduct that appear to be improper or in breach of company policies especially those relating to comments made by employees online and in social media. Sarcasm and satire can be difficult to detect in text-based communication, it is crucial to investigate the context in which those comments are made.

When considering whether an employee’s conduct warrants dismissal, employers must ensure that the employee is afforded procedural fairness in that any explanation provided by the employee it taken into account before the final decision is made and if there any alternative sanctions, other than dismissal, that might be appropriate. Failure to do so may unnecessarily expose the employer to a claim for unfair dismissal.

AWPTI can assist you with full investigation services – http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

AWPTI – workplace investigations in 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/

If your organisation is encountering these types of issues and you are not sure what to do, I recommend that you contact an expert for assistance with training and potential 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 investigation

social media unfair dismissal

Unfair dismissal recently at FWC

Unfair dismissal hearing on 20 January 2016 in Sydney, the FWC found that a HR manager’s decision to dismiss an employee who couldn’t perform the inherent requirements of her role was reasonable, despite some “regrettable” lapses in process, the Fair Work Commission has ruled.

In Sao Duarte v The Paraplegic & Quadriplegic Association of NSW (full text here) involved an employee who in March 2016 emailed the CEO and advised that interpersonal issues at work were adversely affecting her performance and health. The CEO advised that he would monitor the situation.

A month later the HR manager asked the employee to attend a fact-finding meeting about allegations she had altered a client’s weekly medication pack without authorisation. The employee took leave the next day, claiming that that she was suffering from a workplace injury that had been exacerbated by bullying, she did not return to the workplace.

The employer subsequently deemed that Ms Duarte was incapable of performing the inherent requirements of her job due to a major depressive disorder, she was dismissed on the HR manager’s advice after she failed to respond to a show-cause request.

Ms Duarte claimed in her application to the FWC that her dismissal was unfair because she had been subjected to bullying over a  period of time, and was provided with no assistance after complaining about the bullying. She further stated that the fact-finding meeting made her feel targeted, as if she were being “groomed for dismissal”.

She didn’t deny being unable to perform the inherent requirements of her job at the time, but said she might have returned to full duties in the short-to-medium term.

The HR manager gave evidence to the FWC that the dismissal decision was based solely on medical evidence about Ms Duarte’s inability to do her job, even with modifications, and insisted her performance and conduct were irrelevant.

The HR manager said that after seeing references to alleged bullying in the employee’s medical report, she conducted a “fulsome” review (at 47) of her employment records and found no formal complaint. She claimed she only became aware of the employee’s email to the CEO after the dismissal.

Commissioner Booth found it was reasonable for ParaQuad to dismiss the employee after finding she couldn’t carry out the inherent requirements of her role, those requirements required her to be alert, handle emergencies and deal with clients with significant disabilities.

The Commissioner found that it was “regrettable” that the HR manager, having become aware of the allegations, didn’t “extend a conciliatory hand” by, for example, offering to have a conversation with the employee.

“[The manager] effectively asserted that there was no bullying or harassment problem because [the employee] had not followed the correct grievance process,” the Commissioner said.

She described the HR manager’s approach as “form over substance” and said that while it’s preferable for an employee to follow workplace protocol when making allegations, bullying could clearly occur without complaint.

“The art of good human resource practice includes responding to signals as well as addressing issues raised through formal channels.”

The CEO’s failure to take appropriate action, which would “certainly” have involved referring the email to HR, was also regrettable, Commissioner Booth said.

“The CEO said he’d monitor the situation, but gave no evidence of further action. “In my view this was an inadequate response to the concerns raised,” she said.

In dismissing the application, she noted the worker was pursuing a review of her workers’ compensation application, which could prove a more appropriate forum for her grievances.

Lessons for employers

When determining if someone can perform the inherent requirements of their role, employers are advised look to independent medical examinations.

If a complaint of bullying is made it should not be ignored even if it does not fit within the usual process or procedure.

AWPTI – workplace investigations in 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/

Please contact us if you require assistant with the investigation of misconduct complaints to training to help you business avoid such issues. www.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 investigator

Unfair dismissal

 

Anti Bullying Application rejected – Reasonable Management Action.

A case of Reasonable Management Action. On 19 August 2016, the Fair Work Commission handed down a decision dismissing an order to stop bullying. This was only the seventh of its type relating the FWC’s bullying jurisdiction.

In Xiaoli Cao v Metro Assist Inc; Rita Wilkinson, the Applicant,  employed y a charity, sought orders from the FWC against her manager to stop bullying under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The alleged bullying conduct included overloading her, increasing her workload, requesting she perform “unreasonable” tasks, making accusations about her work ethic and demeaning her in front of her work colleagues and other allegations.

Notwithstanding steps taken following two mediation sessions, the Applicant filed a general protections claim on 12 January 2016 and made a bullying complaint to SafeWork NSW.

In exercising its jurisdiction, the FWC considered the Applicant’s evidence that her manager’s actions were not reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.

The employer gave evidence that the actions taken did not constitute bullying and that, where possible, it had actioned the Applicant’s requests to address her concerns and also established measures to rebuild the work relationship between the two parties.

The Commission found that the evidence did not support allegations of unreasonable behaviour by the manager and that the employer had executed reasonable management action and also carried out fair and transparent investigations into her allegations.

This decision demonstrates how reasonable management action done in a reasonable manner will not be considered as workplace bullying.

If you are your managers are unsure about what is and what is not reasonable management action and workplace bullying, I strongly recommend you consider the AWPTI Management Essentials training program, details can be found at http://awpti.com.au/management-training/

AWPTI – workplace investigations in 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 full text of the decision can be found here- https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2016fwc5592.htm

Reasonable Management Action

Exit interview – complaints of bullying,
harassment and sexual harassment

 

An employee tells you during an exit interview that they were bullied, harassed or sexually harassed and that is the reason they are leaving the company, they name the alleged perpetrator but refuse to provide details as they are leaving and say that they want to put the bad experience behind them

What can or should you do?

This is a difficult situation to be faced as a HR professional or manager when conducting an exit interview

Your choice could be;

Do nothing, after all you have no details and no evidence. But remember, the easy way out could come back and bite you later.

Start an investigation, but where to start, if you speak to the alleged perpetrator how will you respond when they ask the usually, what exactly is it claimed that I did, when did this happen.

To conduct an effective investigation you will need to establish lines of enquiry;
• What happened – full details including what was said
• When and where
• Are there any witnesses
• Is there any other evidence

Without further details it is very difficult to conduct an effective investigation, remember you can’t set up a desk in the corner with a sign that reads ‘complain about Mr X here’

Keep records, you may be able to follow up on some information in an informal manner

If you don’t have one establish reporting mechanism for matters of misconduct, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment etc, this will encourage employees to have faith in the process that if they make a complaint it will be addressed.

Ensure that complaints are dealt with in a confidential, timely and professional manner, this will further encourage employees to have faith in the process
Conduct training with purpose;

  • Clearly outline employees behavioural expectations and responsibilities
  • Clearly define what is bullying, harassment, sexual harassment etc and how it will be dealt with by the company
  • Reinforce that the company has a reporting and investigation mechanism to deal with complaints in a confidential, timely and professional manner
  • Provide guidance for employees who feel that they are being bullied, harassed or sexually harassed

If you do not have effective training and investigation processes in place please contact AWPTI so that we can assist you.

AWPTI – workplace investigations in 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/

enquiries@awpti.com.au

 

 Addressing Workplace Bullying

Addressing Workplace bullying, harassment and sexual harassment are common problems faced by many employers and organisations. If not addressed the behaviour of a few can lead the detriment of others and to a large and potentially costly headache for the business.

In recent times there have been a number of very costly judgements being awarded against employers for breaching their duty of care to employees who were the victims of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Addressing workplace bullying, harassment and sexual harassment is not a simple fix, however there are things you can and should do.

Here is a four step method to;

  1. Take reasonable stops to respond to and reduce workplace bullying, harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace.
  2. Cover the business if complaints are made
  3. Promote an inclusive workplace culture
  4. Be seen as an employer of choice

Step 1

Have well written and up to date policies and procedures in place.

Be warned however, bullies and harassers ignore policies, but policies are the law in your company and a breach may be grounds for dismissal. If you don’t have the laws in place, bullies and harassers can behave with impunity.

If you don’t have up to date policies in place we can help – http://awpti.com.au/backup/hr-support/

Step 2

Have training in place designed to clearly outline your policies and the behavioural expectations the company has of its employees.

Again be warned, bullies and harassers ignore training, but if they breach a policy they cannot say “I wasn’t told.” If they are recorded and having undertaken the training, especially with face to face training, where they can’t use excuses like ‘the system was down’, or ‘I missed that bit’.

Good training must include the definitions of what is and what is not bullying, harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace and include the sanctions for breaching policy and being a bully or harasser.

If you don’t have effective workplace training in place we can help – http://awpti.com.au/backup/training/

Step 3

Have a robust and impartial investigation process in place. Make sure that if employees breach policy or act in a bullying, harassing and sexual harassing manner they will be dealt with.

Often engaging an external and professional investigator will send the message that you are not mucking around.

Step 4

Follow up on substantiated findings of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment with decisive action, it may be another case of sending a message that bullying, harassment and sexual harassment will not be tolerated and will be dealt with.

A note of caution;

You must ensure that all investigations are carried out in the professional manner affording the alleged perpetrator procedural fairness including;

  • The right to know the allegations made against them
  • The right to be hard and have their version of events taken into consideration
  • The right to a final determination based on the evidence
  • The right to an unbiased decision maker.
  • The right to a support person during interviews and meetings

Other considerations are;

  • The investigation methodology
  • The rules of evidence
  • Timing of the investigation (including how long it took)

Organisations should not fear taking decisive disciplinary action if they follow correct procedure.

When it comes to conducting a full, professional, timely and cost effective workplace investigation we can help

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/

For more information:

www.awpti.com.auenquiries@awpti.com.au  or 02 9674 4279

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.

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.

Workplace Bullying case

A Gippsland man has been jailed for six months over what has been described as an extended and systematic campaign of workplace bullying that made his victims’ lives “a living hell”.

Mr Sean Clare, from Moe, pleaded guilty to the charge of stalking in relation to the bullying of two colleagues at the Woolworths store in Moe between August 2010 and August 2013.

The 46-year-old verbally abused his then-night shift manager Ms Erica Jegers and another employee, Mr Steven Ricketts.

The Latrobe Magistrates’ Court heard Clare often undermined Ms Jegers, refusing to perform simple tasks and spread rumours she was having an affair.

He was openly hostile and aggressive towards Ms Jegers, making derogatory comments about her while she was in earshot.

On the night of May 1, 2013, Mr Clare called Ms Jegers while she was at work, telling her “if you were a bloke you would have had your head smashed in by now because nobody likes you”.

Mr Clare was sentenced to serve an immediate term of six months’ imprisonment, with a minimum of two months.

In addition a 36-year-old man was also prosecuted under Brodie’s Law and fined $1,000 without conviction.

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/

 Recently at the FWC – Anti Bullying matter

Anti Bullying order.

Purcell v Ms Mary Farah and Mercy Education Ltd t/a St Aloysius College

Read decision [2016] FWC 2308.

This application for an anti bullying order was made by a teacher who was also the OH&S representative at the school.

The applicant alleged that she had been bullied at work by the Principal of the College. The Principal was appointed in 2013 with a mandate from the Board of Mercy Education to effect change and arrest declining enrolment; however some staff were resistant to the change and preferred the status quo.

The applicant gave evidence that she became increasingly concerned about Mercy Education’s bullying policy and in May 2013 raised the issue of bullying and the need to update the policy.

The College’s Business Manager agreed to review the bullying policy by the end of the year however this did not eventuate; the applicant raised the issue again in April 2014. The Deputy Principal was listed in the bullying policy as the complaints officer however there was no Deputy Principal at the College, as the previous Deputy Principal had resigned in 2013 after the Principal had been appointed.

The bullying policy was finally revised and re-issued in 2015 after the applicant filed complaints in December 2014. The applicant identified a number of incidents occurring from late 2013, and continuing after her return from long service leave in mid-2015, which she maintained was repeated unreasonable behaviour by the Principal.

The Commission concluded that four of the incidents which the applicant complained about, taken together, amounted to repeated unreasonable behaviour. The Commission found that the conduct was likely to have caused the applicant distress and that the behaviour created a risk to the health and safety of the applicant. The Commission found that the applicant was bullied at work.

Lessons for employers:

  1. Ensure your policies are up to date and compliant, if you don’t have the time or expertise, get help – see www.awpti.com.au/hr-support/
  2. Investigate complaints about bullying in a timely and professional manner, if you are not sure what to do, call an expert – www.awpti.com.au/investigations/

The Commission considered what orders (if any) should be made, finding the relationship between the applicant and the Principal was an mutually tense the Commission held that interpersonal relationship disputes are best resolved through the efforts of the parties, and perhaps assisted by some form of .facilitation, dispute resolution intervention or mediation.

The Commission held that some form of reconciliation was much more likely to produce a lasting, positive improvement in the working relationship between the parties than any order could.

The Commission proposed that the parties engage with each other in a series of mediated or facilitated meetings with the aim of repairing their relationship, and engaging in a dialogue that would accommodate an ongoing professional working relationship, and a safe working environment. If the parties were unwilling to engage with each other, then the Commission advised that either party could request the expeditious hearing and determination of the question of whether orders should be made.

Lessons for employers and employees

  1. In some cases a dispute resolution invention might better option to deal with complaints than an investigation especially in matters of a she said, he said nature with little of no other evidence. Each matter must be assessed on it merits.
  2. Investigations tend to have winners and losers, a dispute resolution intervention has the potential to create a win win situation.
  3. A a dispute resolution intervention can also be a more cost and time effective solution.

If you have received a complaint and are not sure what to do, go to the Australian Workplace Training & Investigation home page www.awpti.com.au and request our Compliant Analysis Chart. The chart will assist you in deciding the best course of action to take when you have received a complaint.

AWPTI can also assist you with dispute resolution interventions – www.awpti.com.au/disputes/

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/

You can contact AWPTI – enquiries@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.

 

Employee Investigation

What if the employee does not want an investigation into their complaint?

Employee investigation – This is a common question that I am asked and one that many HR professional are face with when an employee does not want an investigation into a complaint that they have made to you.

Remember people change their minds, people listen to other people and have their minds changed

In some circumstances, an employee may raise a workplace issue with their employer or make an “informal” complaint but does not wish for any formal action to be taken, as was the case in Swan v Monash Law Book Co-operative (Swan v Monash).

Remember that it is the responsibility (duty of care) of the employer to protect its employees against unlawful behaviour and conduct in the workplace.

As a result, sometimes irrespective of an employee’s views on how their workplace issue should be managed, once an employer or HR professional becomes aware of an issue, it is imperative that the employer considers the potential risks arising from the complaint, and makes an assessment about the extent to which the issue should be investigated and the process for doing so.

Time for a shift in thinking

Think about it this way, once an employee has made a complaint the ownership of that complaint now rests with the HR professional or manager who received the complaint. What happens with or to the complaint will rest with you as will the consequences of not doing anything.

The case of Swan v Legibook – Supreme Court of Victoria – 26 June 2013 illustrates what can happen and can result in a breach of duty of care due to a failure to investigate a bullying complaint.

The applicant made complaints of workplace bullying in 2003 (the informal complaint) and formal complaints in 2005, she left Legibook in 2007 had not worked since.

The employer in Swan v Monash failed to promptly act on the employee’s workplace bullying complaint because when the issue was first raised by the employee, the employee did not wish for any formal action to be taken.

This delay (and of course the underlying conduct complained of) ultimately resulted in the employer being ordered to pay damages to the employee for the severe psychological injuries that she suffered

The applicant claimed anxiety, depression, and other physical conditions, she was awarded $600,000.00

Lessons for employers;

  1. In matters of bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination you have to make a decision to investigate, consider the risks to the business, YOU own the complaint now.
    (If you are not sure contact me for a copy of the AWPTI Risk Assessment Chart and Complaint Analysis Chart.)
  2. If things hit the fan, the buck stops with YOU.
  3. Just like pass the parcel, when you are holding the complaint and the music stops if you haven’t done anything about it you may be out.
  4. Just because an employee says I don’t want anything done it doesn’t mean that they won’t change their mind.
  5. Ensure that your managers are aware of their duty of care to employees and understand the need to investigate complaint matters.
  6. Investigate complaints of this nature thoroughly and in a timely manner.
  7. If in doubt call an expert

Don’t be caught out, for assistance with complaint investigation contact us www.awpti.com.au/investigation  or training www.awpti.com.au/training

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 and provide you and your employees with up to date a relevant training in the areas of misconduct, investigations, procedural fairness, reasonable management action, performance management, bullying & harassment and other issues facing employers and workplaces.

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 investigator.

 

 

 

Beware of vicarious liability

Employers have a duty of care to ensure that they take all reasonable steps to ensure that there is nothing in the workplace that could cause an employee to suffer an injury or to contract an illness this includes taking reasonable steps to eliminate and/or respond to workplace bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. Failing to do so could mean that employers may be vicarious liability  for the bullying behaviours of an employee toward another employee.

vicarious liability as a result of a breach of  the duty of care can have serious consequences for employees and expensive consequences for employers.

The case of Eaton v TriCare (Country) Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 139 illustrates a breach of duty of care in a workplace bullying matter. The Qld Court of Appeal found that an aged care facility had breached its non-delegable duty by failing to take steps to minimise the risk of a former employee developing a psychiatric illness due to managerial pressure.

A former employee of the nursing home claimed that she developed depression and anxiety as a result of her excessive workload and the conduct of her manager. She claimed that, from 2009 when the particular manager joined the facility, she was subject to offensive, intimidating and humiliating behaviour causing her to become withdrawn, preoccupied, worried and noticeably depressed within the workplace.

The former employee claimed damages for loss of earnings as a result of her inability to work due to her psychiatric illness.

Being overworked, of itself, would not have been sufficient to establish breach. However, the manager’s constant belittling, yelling, aggression and general disregard for the former employee, coupled with the excessive workload, was sufficient to amount to breach.

There was evidence to suggest that the manager (and therefore the facility) should have foreseen the former employee’s particular vulnerability and her risk of developing a psychiatric disorder. Awarded over $430,000.00 in damages

 

Lessons for employers:

  1. Ensure that your managers are aware of their duty of care to employees and understand the difference between management and bullying.
  2. Don’t ignore complaints or reasonably foreseeable situations
  3. Investigate complaints of this nature thoroughly and in a timely manner.
  4. If in doubt call an expert

 

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 and provide you and your employees with up to date a relevant training in the areas of misconduct, investigations, procedural fairness, reasonable management action, performance management, bullying & harassment and other issues facing employers and workplaces.

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 a suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigator.