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

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

Stop-bullying application rejected

An employee who claimed his new team leader micromanaged and bullied him has had his stop-bullying application rejected, after the Fair Work Commission found her behaviour "abrupt" but not repeated or unreasonable. The Bunnings Warehouse employee claimed that in May 2016 the new team leader asked him about his face – the left side of his face "droops" and he is unable to move his left arm – which he found "deeply disrespectful and hurtful". A few weeks later, the team leader on two occasions confronted him and questioned why he was in different sections of the store, he told the Commission, noting he believed he was being singled out and treated differently from colleagues. He contacted the store manager to discuss the issue but was told she was too busy to speak with him, and he subsequently took two days off because of work-related stress. The employee claimed that when he returned to work, the employer suspended him but didn't tell him wh...
Post a Comment
Read more