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

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...
Post a Comment
Read more

Workplace Investigation biased process

The presence of bias be it actual or perceived during an investigation can derail the investigation and undermine any findings and recommendations. Complaint of bias are often raised relating to two areas, the investigation process itself or the investigation interviews. This article will examine the process, part two will examine bias during interviews. Workplace investigations are defined as  "an unbiased gathering of evidence"  and to ensure that that a complaint of bias is not raised or substantiated it is important to follow these rules; Approach the investigation with an open mind. Do no make any judgements on the parties Do not make any judgements on the truthfulness of any of the parties versions of events until all the evidence has been gathered. Gather all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the complaint Do not form a theory and then seek evidence to support your theory only Do not make early determinations If you feel that you ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Violence Valid Ground for Dismissal

Violence Valid Ground for Dismissal The Fair Work Commission (in the case of  Sekirski v Scope (Vic) Ltd [2017] FWC 1200 ) has found that an employee who assaulted a co-worker by striking her in the face was validly dismissed.  Stif Sekirski commenced employment as a Disability Support Worker with Scope (Vic) Ltd in November 2014.  Mr Sekirski’s employment was terminated on 2 September 2016 on grounds of serious misconduct. It was alleged that Mr Sekirski punched a co-worker in the face, then called her a bit** and threw a chair in her direction.  The FWC was satisfied that this conduct had occurred, and held that this conduct provided Scope with a valid reason to terminate Mr Sekirski’s employment. It is important that when confronted with matters involving violence in the workplace employers ensure that they conduct a timely and thorough investigation.   We recommend that even if summary dismissal is a likely outcome you should s...
1 comment
Read more