Skip to main content

Workplace investigation documents

It is important to understand that a workplace investigation may be scrutinised by a court in the case of a complainant suing in negligence for a breach of a duty of care in a bullying or sexual harassment matter for example the case of Mathews v Winslow Constructors where an award of 1.3 million dollars was ordered or by the Fair Work Tribunal in the case of an unfair dismissal application is made by a terminated employee.

A crucial part of any investigation are the workplace investigation documents including;
  • Letters to the complainant and witnesses
  • Letters of allegation to respondents
  • Risk assessments
  • Witness statement
  • Interim reports
  • Final reports
It is essential that firstly these documents actually exist and secondly that they are compliant.

In the case of Michael Fitzpatrick v Bunnings Group Ltd

The commissioner found (at 85)
In addition to not providing Mr Fitzpatrick with the basis of the allegation, in a written form, the Commission was not provided with a written record of the disciplinary investigation. The Commission was not provided with a written record of what actions were taken against Mr Fitzpatrick or provided with an adequate written record of the reasons why he was dismissed for serious misconduct. The only evidence provided to the Commission was a very abridged record of a disciplinary discussion/meeting on 2 October 2013 at the time of Mr Fitzpatrick’s dismissal

and at (91)

the Employer should have reduced to writing the allegations regarding Mr Fitzpatrick’s conduct which could lead to his dismissal. This would have enabled Mr Fitzpatrick to respond to the specific allegations and supporting evidence, rather than Mr Vitler and Mr Cherry making a choice regarding the “facts” based on the initial statement

The commission found in favour of Mr Fitzpatrick

Drafting letters, especially letters of allegation is a complex task as there are important components that must be included to ensure legal compliance.

Take the headache out of ensuring that you have the right workplace investigation documents with the AWPTI Investigation Document Toolbox - http://awpti.com.au/investigation-toolbox/

The toolbox also contains;
  • Step by step workplace investigation instructions (20 documents) (pdf)
  • Complaint Analysis Chart (pdf)
  • Investigation Flow Chart (pdf)
  • Investigation Interview Manual (pdf)
  • Template Risk Assessment form (Word doc)
  • Template investigation plans x 2 (Word doc)
  • Template letter to the complainant (Word doc)
  • Template letter to the witnesses (Word doc)
  • Template initial letter to the respondent (Word doc)
  • Template letter of allegation to the respondent (Word doc)
  • Template complainant interview guide/script (Word doc)
  • Template witness interview guide/script (Word doc)
  • Template respondent interview guide/script (Word doc)
  • Sample witness statement (Word doc)
  • Sample interim report (Word doc)
  • Sample final investigation report (Word doc)
AWPTI Investigation Document Toolbox - http://awpti.com.au/investigation-toolbox/
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