Skip to main content

Workplace Investigation Questions to ask and not to ask

Workplace Investigation Questions and the question of what and how to ask questions during an interview.

The interview is typically a means to gather evidence, to clarify points made in a complaint, to find out what people saw, heard or experienced and also an opportunity for the person who is the subject of the complaint to provide their side of the story.

There are two key elements to the actual interview that are of paramount importance - asking questions and listening to the answers.

It is important that investigators ask question that are legally complainant and get the best answers from the interviewee.  Here are some suggestions

Types of questions

  • Open questions – that encourage free recall
    • “Sarah had alleged that you swore at her during the meeting on the 10th, would you care to comment about that?”
    • “Can you tell me about the meeting on the 10th?”
    • “I would like to ask you about the meeting on the 10th, can you tell me what happened?” 
  • Closed questions - usually get a Yes or No answer.
    • “Did you swear at Sarah during the meeting on the 10th?” 
  • Leading questions - direct the interviewee toward an answer and should be avoided. Leading questions may be classed as inadmissible if the matter goes to court
    • “You swore at Sarah during the meeting on the 10th, didn’t you?” 
  • Suggestive questions – suggest to the interviewee what the answer should be, this should be avoided.
    • “It sounds like you are telling me is that you swore at Sarah during the meeting on the 10th, am I right?” 
  • Multiple questions - only tend to confuse the interviewee
    • “Were you at the meeting on the 10th, was Sarah there and did you swear at her?” 
  • Repetitive questions - will tend to annoy or frustrate an interviewee, if you need to repeat a question re-frame it.
    • “Can you tell me what you said to Sarah at the meeting on the 10th?” 
  • Negative Questions - are used when the person who asks expects a positive answer, this can agitate an interviewee and they can claim that you are putting words in their mouth hey may also show a biased attitude
    • “Shouldn’t you have treated Sarah with more respect?” 
  • Statements or opinions – have no place in an interview. Your opinion is not relevant during an interview and making statements may damage the rapport you have established with the interviewee, they may also show a biased attitude
    • “I think that you did swear at Sarah, you should tell me the truth.”
A good interviewer will use a combination of open and closed questions, re-framed where necessary.
Lead with open questions, clarify with closed questions
Listening

During an interview it is important to listen to the answers provided by the interviewee.
Focus on the answers provided by the interviewee and not your next question.
Take notes during the interview;
  • Comments/information to follow up on.
  • Outstanding information.
  • Inconsistencies
As a general rule of thumb a recorded interview should be 80% the interviewee talking and 20% the interviewer.

Supportive comments

Especially when the interview is being recorded, be very careful not to use affirming comments in the case for example “yes” or “I agree” or “yes that’s terrible” or “I understand”

Comment such as these can imply a bias on behalf of the interviewer.

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
Labels:
Location: Sydney NSW, Australia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lorna Jane vindicated after two-year, $570,000 bullying case

Legal experts are urging businesses to train their staff in up-to-date social media policies this year, after activewear brand Lorna Jane won a two-year legal battle in November against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work. Former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane in 2015, seeking $570,000 in damages. The former manager claimed Lorna Jane was negligent and should be held responsible for her being bullied by a learning and development manager at the company, which led to psychiatric illness and a loss of employment and future employability. The company came out swinging against the claims early on,   posting a later-deleted Facebook post in 2015 defending itself against the claims  and saying it had been “very disappointed” by what had been reported in the media about the case. The claims included that Robinson was bullied and called a variety of names while...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent decisions at the Fair Work Commission

Knowledge is power when it comes to managing claims risk Unfair dismissal applications are all too common and employers regularly find themselves in hot water when they are on the receiving end of one. Whilst the outcome of every unfair dismissal case tends to turn on its own individual merits, opportunities to learn and refresh one’s knowledge consistently arise – and knowledge is power when it comes to managing claims risk. To assist you in managing your unfair dismissal claims risk, this article set out some important lessons and reminders compiled from a number of recent unfair dismissal decisions made by the Fair Work Commission. If an employee has “gotten away” with certain conduct in the past, it can be difficult to later justify their dismissal for such conduct. In West v Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 2346, the applicant employee allowed a casual labour hire worker to operate a crane without adequate supervision. This was despite the fact that the labour hire wo...
Post a Comment
Read more
The serious threat SMEs are ignoring: One in two small businesses don’t have a policy for bullying claims One in two small businesses do not know how they would respond if bullying allegations were raised by their staff, according to new research, leaving them open to significant costs and productivity issues. But workplace experts say these concerns can be prevented with forward planning A survey of 400 businesses from employment relations advisory Employsure found one in two Australian small businesses don’t have a “defined action plan” for when bullying is raised at work, with many unaware that they could face costs related to dispute resolution or even penalties relating to bullying cases in some states. The research, which surveyed businesses with up to 15 employees, found those businesses with between two and four employees were the most likely to be unaware of best practice processes for dealing with bullying claims, with only 40% of businesses saying they know the st...
Post a Comment
Read more