Skip to main content

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;
  1. Approach the investigation with an open mind.
  2. Do no make any judgements on the parties
  3. Do not make any judgements on the truthfulness of any of the parties versions of events until all the evidence has been gathered.
  4. Gather all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the complaint
  5. Do not form a theory and then seek evidence to support your theory only
  6. Do not make early determinations
  7. If you feel that you have any sort of conflict of interest declare it, manage it or withdraw from the investigation.
Workplace Investigation biased process actual or perceived is often as a result of an inexperienced investigator who lacks the confidence or competency to understand and carry out the investigative process.

It is important that when all the evidence is gathered to;
  1. Review and analyse all the evidence carefully, this requires a high level of skill and experience, an understanding of evidence and evidence law and the standard of proof in civil matter (on the balance of probabilities)
  2. Make a decision in regard to what weight you place on each persons evidence without taking into account how you feel about the person or the complaint.
  3. Never allow any personal preferences good or bad about anything relevant to the investigation to cloud your judgement.
Once again bias at this point is also usually as a result of  an inexperienced investigator who lacks the confidence or competency to understand the investigative process.

A conflict of interest that could lead to a perception of bias may occur in a number of circumstance including but not limited to;
  1. Your position in the organisation
  2. Your knowledge, personal views about or relationships with any of the parties
  3. Any history you may have with any of the parties
  4. Your personal views on the behaviour complained about
  5. Pressure placed upon you by the parties involved in the investigation or other such as senior managers
  6. Expectations in regard to outcomes
A complaint of bias as a result of a conflicted of interest (actual, potential or perceived) may be hard to avoid if the matter is conducted internally. This is very common problem faced by HR professionals and managers after all you are part of the organisation, you know the people involved, you may have had previous adverse dealings with the person subject of the complaint or grievance.

Respondent may raise a complaint of bias or conflict of interest if the complaints are substantiated and disciplinary action is taken. Complainants may also raise the issue of bias or a conflict or interest if the outcome is not what they expected or desired

In the case of Fitzpatrick v Bunnings [2014] FWC 1869, the Fair Work Commission found that the employee’s dismissal was unfair, in part because the Company’s choice of investigator created the perception of bias, if not actual bias.

You must be careful when choosing the investigator, if there is no one in your organisation who is suitably qualified, experienced, confident and has the time to conduct the investigation, you may wish to consider appointing an external investigator who has no prior knowledge of the parties and is able to conduct a completely impartial and unbiased investigation. AWPTI can assist - http://awpti.com.au/investigations/


Workplace Investigation biased process - 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

Comments

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...

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...
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...