No Comments

WARNING! Workplace Investigation – Getting it Wrong

The recent Fair Work Commission decision in Tavassoli v Bupa Aged Care Australia Pty Ltd illustrates the importance of conducting workplace investigations in a procedurally fair way including to give full particulars and evidence of the allegations.

The Case

In essence:

  • an employee was a refugee from Iran who worked as a nursing home employee at the employer’s Mosman aged care facility
  • during that employment a colleague made covert video recordings of the employee which showed her disregarding resident calls, teasing residents, and laughing in response to reports about residents’ deaths
  • the recordings were provided to the facility’s General Manager and the employee was suspended from duties the following day
  • the employee was informed that her conduct was the subject of an investigation, but was otherwise not given advanced notice of the specific allegations made against her
  • at an interview the General Manager put the allegations to the employee, but did not show the employee the video recordings
  • at the end of the interview the employee (who had limited command of English), submitted her immediate resignation which was accepted
  • two days later the employee contacted the employer and requested to have her resignation withdrawn, however this request was refused

The Decision

The Fair Work Commission held:

  • the employer’s decision not to show the employee the video recordings of her conduct was “poor and wrong”, stating that Bupa “had an obligation to show the employee the video footage, particularly when it formed the sole foundation of the allegations”
  • the covert recordings of the employee’s conduct constituted a “blatant breach of privacy” and a potential breach of the Workplace Surveillance Act
  • the employer conducted the workplace investigation and interview in a procedurally unfair way
  • the employee was not given advanced notice of the allegations against her
  • the employer failed to have sufficient regard to the employee’s limited command of English including when considering whether or not to accept the employee’s resignation
  • the employer’s refusal to agree to the employee’s request to withdraw her resignation was unfair and evidenced an intention that the employer was going to dismiss the employee anyway prior to completing an investigation

The Sting

The employer’s failure to provide the employee with the video evidence of her alleged misconduct, together with the employer’s knowledge of the employee’s limited command of English, rendered the refusal to accept the withdrawal of the employee’s resignation a constructive dismissal, and procedurally unfair. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – The Need for Proper Workplace Investigations

Employment Law – Background

Employment claims like bullying and unfair dismissal continually on the rise in employment law. Consequently, employers are increasingly required to take pro-active steps to investigate suspected workplace incidents and disputes before they lead to such claims.

A workplace investigation is a formal investigative process into an alleged workplace incident or dispute and it may be necessary to undertake same even if the complainant objects to it (ie, because they only wish to make an informal complaint). [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Workplace Investigation Documents

Employment Law – Background

In ‘LC’ and Australia Post the Information Commissioner has upheld an employer’s right to deny a former employee access to workplace investigation witness statements in order to protect the integrity of its complaints process.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • the former Australia Post employee requested access to documents after a HR practitioner informed him that two managers were facing discipline in their employment as a result of being heard making “derogatory” comments about him
  • although Australia Post initially denied the request, after reviewing its decision they granted him access to four workplace documents in full and two in part
  • however, they refused to provide him access to witness statements, “warning counselling documents” and an email chain
  • in refusing access to these workplace documents, they relied on the exemption under s47E(c) of the Freedom of Information Act (Act), which allows access to documents to be denied if such access would have a “substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel”
  • the employee applied to the Information Commissioner to gain access to the remaining workplace documents

Employment Law – Decision

The Information Commissioner found:

  • the documents qualified for the exemption under the Act
  • this was because the witness statements and “warning counselling documents” would “directly address the substance of the workplace complaint”
  • thus, releasing them would make witnesses reluctant to come forward in the future for fear of facing “backlash” from others involved
  • consequently, this would have a “substantial adverse effect” on the conduct of HR’s enquiries and the employer’s management function as a whole
  • the email chain was also exempt as it related to witness statements
  • there was a public interest in “protecting the integrity and robustness of Australia Post’s code of conduct complaints processes” and similar processes in other government agencies

 

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers: [...]  READ MORE →