Posts

Unfair dismissal serious misconduct workplace investigation – When considering dismissing an employee for serious misconduct, employers must bare in mind the following;

  1. Does the alleged behaviour that resulted dismissal reach the threshold of serious misconduct
  2. Have you conducted an investigation – do yo have the evidence to support the decision to terminate?
  3. Does the punishment fit the crime?

More details of another case there the issue of the punishment fitting the crime was considered by the FWC – http://awpti.com.au/punishment-must-fit-crime/

More details about summary dismissal can be found here – http://awpti.com.au/summary-dismissal-2/

Recently at the fair Work Commission, the depot manager at an Australian courier company was unfairly sacked after he was accused of being responsible for the breach of a worldwide embargo on the J.K. Rowling book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the Fair Work Commission has found.

The FWC heard that XL Express Pty Ltd sacked the depot manager for serious misconduct last November when he was told that the delivery of embargoed J.K. Rowling books a day early had damaged the company’s reputation. XL Express blamed the Brisbane depot manager for the embargo breach, a claim he denied.

Describing the delivery of embargoed freight as “the pinnacle of its operations”, the company said a November 17, 2016 embargo on the J.K. Rowling novel was breached on November 16.

Under cross-examination, the company agreed it had not lost its contract with the book distributor and had not been financially penalised for the embargo breach. It claimed a forklift driver removed the embargo consignment from the embargo area and that another staff member removed the consignment note from an embargo file. The depot manager was accused of failing to ensure staff followed set procedures for embargo releases.

The depot manager told the FWC that the error with the sorting and handling of the consignment note happened on November 15 when he was on leave.  He said he was unaware that someone had “accessed his office, gained access to the box where the embargo labels were kept and also retrieved the con-note from the embargo con-notes and had labelled the freight”.

He said no fewer than six people had taken these actions on the day he was absent from the depot.

The commission heard that the depot manager claimed the error that resulted in the embargo breach on November 16 “was not through any fault on his part”.

The depot manager, who had been employed from May 2008 until late November last year, was dismissed on the grounds of serious misconduct after a meeting in which he was also accused of workplace bullying. He said it was the first time the allegations had been put to him. He was also accused of wrongly claiming he had received training in the company’s anti-bullying procedures.

Fair Work Commission deputy president Ingrid Asbury’s judgment said XL Express had no documents and called no evidence to support the bullying allegations.

The depot manager told the commission he was not paid his long service leave entitlements because his job was terminated for misconduct.

In finding the dismissal was unfair, Deputy President Asbury ordered XL Express to pay the sacked employee $48,432 in wages, less tax and $6555 in superannuation contributions.

The commission found that although it was not a valid reason for his dismissal, the depot manager’s responsibility for depot operations “meant that he had a role in the series of events that led to the embargo breach”.

It said the dismissal was harsh because it was disproportionate to the misconduct in relation to the embargo breach.

It is important to consider the decision in Rode v Burwood Mitsubishi where is was held a valid reason must be “defensible or justifiable on objective analysis of relevant facts”.

 

Unfair dismissal flawed investigation

Unfair dismissal flawed investigation – Workplace investigations may be necessary part of business but are often complex and difficult to conduct, especially for the untrained and inexperienced.

A question that is generally raised after a complaint has been lodged is whether to conduct the investigation internally or to obtain external investigation assistance.

Before relying on the findings of an investigation especially when terminating an employee, employers must consider whether the investigation itself and its findings are sound and can be supported by the facts.

In the case of Jennifer Walker v Salvation Army (NSW) [2017] FWC 32 the internal investigation was found flawed due to reliance on false assumptions.

Link to case: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FWC/2017/32.html

In this unfair dismissal case at the Fair Work Commission, the applicant Ms Walker was the manager of the Salvation Army’s store in Lidcombe, Sydney. She had been an employee of the Salvation Army for 11 years and during that time had an unblemished employee record.

In July 2016, Ms Walker served a customer who wished to purchase items of furniture. Ms Walker did not enter a sale and provided the customer with a handwritten document indicating she had set aside certain items.

The customer arrived later in the week to pick up the furniture. The customer claimed he had paid $200 in full for the furniture, however, there was no record of sale. The Salvation Army subsequently investigated the issue. The investigation consisted of a review of the CCTV footage and discussions with Ms Walker and the customer.

The Salvation Army believed the customer’s account and that the CCTV showed Ms Walker had received $200 cash from a customer as payment for furniture he was purchasing.

The CCTV footage showed that while dealing with the customer, Ms Walker had at least $50 in her hand. Ms Walker denied receiving any money from the customer. The Salvation Army terminated her employment for serious misconduct (theft).

In considering the case, Senior Deputy President Hamberger noted that the more serious the alleged conduct the higher the standard of reasonable satisfaction is needed to be applied when determining whether the conduct occurred.

SDP Hamberger found that the evidence demonstrated that Ms Walker was holding a $50 note in her hand, but it did not establish that she had received that money from the customer. SDP Hamberger concluded the customer had not paid Ms Walker for the furniture and as a result held that Ms Walker had not engaged in serious misconduct and that her termination was unfair

SDP Hamberger was surprised at the lack of rigour in the internal investigation and that the Salvation Army so readily accepted the customer’s claims that he had paid ahead of the account of Ms Walker.

In finding that the dismissal was unfair, SDP Hamberger considered the criteria in section 392 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and awarded the Store Manager the maximum available compensation of twenty six weeks’ pay equating to $22,404.50.

Lessons for employers

When conducting a workplace disciplinary investigation, employers should undertake the following:

  • Ensure that the employee is afforded procedural fairness especially the right to be heard
  • Ensure that the employee is provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations. This involves providing the employee with sufficient details of the alleged conduct in writing.
  • In the case of CCTV evidence, it is recommended that employers, ensure that the employee are permitted to view the footage prior to providing a response.
  • Genuinely consider different or alternative explanations for the alleged conduct, and ensure all available evidence is gathers from witnesses and duly considered.
  • Consider any mitigating circumstances prior to making a determination in regard to disciplinary action such the length of service or employment record and past behaviour of the employee.
  • Ensure impartiality and avoid making assumptions of guilt prior to the completion of a fair and thorough investigation;
  • Provide the employee with the opportunity to have a support person present, including providing the employee with sufficient opportunity to find an appropriate support person; and
  • When in doubt, consider other opinions before terminating.

This decision in this case demonstrates the disadvantages of undertaking an internal investigation which was not thorough and made assumptions (that is, the customer’s account was truthful), rather than taking a more open minded approach to all asserted facts.

If in doubt call an expert, getting a workplace investigation wrong can be costly both in terms of money and reputation.

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 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.

 

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.

 

 

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 the FWC

On 10 January 2017 an unfair dismissal hearing at the FWC in Melbourne upheld the summary dismissal of a worker who tested positive for cannabis after a car accident, despite the arguments that the employee was denied procedural fairness.

In Albert v Alice Springs Town Council, Commissioner Wilson found that the employee was fairly dismissed after having failed the drug test despite the employer not providing Mr Albert with the opportunity to respond to the drug test results.

The Commissioner’s held that the employee’s misconduct outweighed any procedural faults in his dismissal , in addition that it wasn’t obvious that failing to provide the worker with procedural fairness would lead to a finding he was unfairly dismissed.

Facts

In July 2016, Mr Albert was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving a council truck, he was required to undergo a urine test which identified THC in his system that was 73 times higher than the Council’s ‘cut off’ level of 15 micrograms per litre.

The extremely high reading led the Council to summarily dismiss Mr Albert cited that his behaviour was serious misconduct in that it represented a danger to himself, other workers and the public.

Mr Albert filed an application for unfair dismissal arguing the Council had not provided him with the relevant paperwork when he took the urine test, and refused to give him copies of his results.

Although Commissioner Wilson found the Council had not provided the worker with procedural fairness, he held the dismissal was justified as the Council had a valid reason to dismiss the worker because his job involved safety-critical work.

Despite these defects in the Council’s internal disciplinary process, Commissioner Wilson held the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable because the outcome of the disciplinary process would have been the same even if there had been no such defect.

As such Commissioner Wilson found that the seriousness of the worker’s actions outweighed the procedural faults of the Council in its decision to dismiss the worker. Further, had the procedural faults been remedied, and the Council formally put the test result to the worker, it would have been unlikely to affect or alter the ultimate outcome of the matter.

Lesson for employers

In most cases in relation to unfair dismissal, failure to afford procedural fairness before dismissing an employee will, result in a finding that the dismissal was unfair, resulting in either the reinstatement of the employee (when considered appropriate) or payment of compensation.

In very clear cases of serious misconduct, a lack of procedural fairness might save you from liability on an unfair dismissal claim, it is recommend that you still ensure that you provide procedural fairness and save yourself the argument later.

Have a well drafted drug and alcohol policy which clearly states what is acceptable behaviour and the consequences of any unacceptable behaviour will assist employers with disciplinary outcomes should an employee record a positive test result

Full decision – https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2017fwc73.htm.

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/

Australian Workplace Training & Investigation can assist you by conducting misconduct investigations, the Principal Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator, Lawyer and former member of the NSW Police who can guide you through the minefield of sexual harassment investigations. http://awpti.com.au/about-awpti/

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

Responding to sexual harassment complaints 2

Part 1 on this subject (more details) dealt with outsourcing investigations, in responding sexual harassment complaints 2 I will outline a procedure that can be followed if as manager or HR professional you choose to conduct the investigation internally.

Investigations are conducted internally for a number of reasons including, cost, availability and internal processes and procedures.

This article provides an overview of how to conduct an internal investigation. Please note it is an overview only, conducting an investigation is a complex and often time consuming matter requiring a high level of expertise.

There are many procedural steps during an investigation that are not included here for the purpose of brevity.

Should you wish a complete guide for conducting workplace investigations I have created a comprehensive investigation toolbox contains 35 documents (including template letters, interview plans, sample reports) and an Investigation Interview Manual. http://awpti.com.au/investigation-toolbox/

Complaints of sexual harassment

Generally complaints will be made either in person verbally or in writing, most commonly via email.

Step 1.

If the complaint is made in person, the first step is to obtain as much detail as possible from the complainant at the time of reporting.

If the complaint is made in writing or email, I recommend that you review the complaint and any other documentation, print it off and Identify and highlight areas where further information is required.

Identify areas where clarification of information is required, questions such as the who, what, what did they do, when, where, what was said, was anyone else present, if so who?

Step 2

Once you have reviewed the complaint it will be necessary to formally interview the complainant. 

This will require you to draft an interview plan that should include questions designed to have the complainant clarify when they meant when they used descriptive words such as sexually harassed, bullying, harassing, intimidated etc

You should also draft questions to have the complainant clarify words they may have used such as touched, looked, leered, yelled, shouted, angry etc and questions to ascertain the nature of the relationship of the parties prior to and during the incidents complained about

Complainants often use emotive language you must be sure what they actually mean.

You do not need to write out every question you are going to ask, the interview should be organic and led by the answers you receive to the key points you have identified.

Step 3

Interview the complainant. 

Investigative interviewing is a skill in itself and is far too detailed to go into here.  I have produced an interview manual that has been designed as a practical guide for workplace investigation interviewing. http://awpti.com.au/investigation-interview-manual/

The manual will assist you in preparing, conducting and reviewing the interview upon completion.

During the complainant interview you should be seeking as much further information as possible and the answers to the questions you have previously identified, clarifying as much information as possible

Step 4

Review all of the information (evidence) from the complainant.

Draw up a list of witnesses and potential witnesses. Witness will tend to support or refute the information provided by the complainant.

Draft the interview as you did for the complainant

Step 5

Interview the witnesses.

You should seek to obtain information that either corroborates or refute the complainant information.

Witnesses may also provide further information that leads to new avenues of enquiry.

Step 6

Review all the information you have. Identify any gaps in the information and what if any further information is required.

If warranted, draft a letter of allegation to be provided to the person subject of the complaint, the respondent.

The letter of allegation provided to the respondent must contain sufficient detail of the complaint to allow them to respond. This is a component of procedural fairness.

Step 7

Interview the respondent, allow them the opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide their side of the event/s. This is also a component of procedural fairness.

During the interview the respondent may nominate additional witnesses, these witnesses should be interviewed in the same manner as witnesses nominated by the complainant.

Step 8

Review and analyse all the evidence and make a finding as to whether the allegations have been substantiated or not or are unable to be substantiated.

Step 9

Report your findings in a clear manner.

Step 10

Advise the parties of the outcome of the investigation.

As I mentioned at the start, conducting an investigation is a complex and often time consuming matter. The AWPTI Investigation toolbox is a highly recommended resource for you to have if you intend to conduct investigations internally. http://awpti.com.au/investigation-toolbox/

If is important to remember, if you are unsure consider calling in an expert. 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/

 

 

 

 

Punishment must fit the crime

It is important for employers to remember when managing misconduct issues to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

For example in the case of In Beamish v Calvary Health Care Tasmania Limited T/A Calvary Health Care Tasmania [2016] a matter involving the alleged misuse of internal communication a terminated employee was reinstated after it was found by the FWC that a reference to the Director of the Catholic Mission as “Mission Impossible” in internal emails was a misguided attempt at humour and not sufficiently serious to warrant termination.

The Fair Work Commission ordered the reinstatement after finding that “the punishment did not fit the crime”.

It is often the case that employers are unsure as to what course of action to take when dealing with misconduct, I advise the following;

  • Investigate the matter thoroughly ensuring that you gather and consider all the available evidence.
  • Ensure that you always afford the person subject of the complaint procedural fairness, the right to know what they are being accused of and the right that their response is heard and considered.
  • Take into account
    • o The nature and overall effect of the misconduct to the parties and to the organisation
    • o The employees history, length of time with the organisation and previous if any misconduct issues
  • Review options other than termination

Still not sure, contact AWPTI, we can take the stress out of dealing with misconduct issues for 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/

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.

 

 

 

 

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.