| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed respondent’s failure to conduct fair and full inquiry into applicant’s complaints caused disadvantage – Respondent argued preliminary conclusion justified for fair investigation – Applicant lodged formal complaint alleging bullying, harassment, unfair treatment, and discrimination – Respondent’s human resources manager (“M”) appointed third party (“T”) to conduct preliminary investigation to ensure no bias – M previously dealt with matters involving applicant - T reviewed documentation, interviewed applicant and gave applicant opportunity to comment – Applicant requested T interview 8 staff members as witnesses to alleged incidents – T sought advice from external investigator and M whether all witnesses should be interviewed – M advised T not to conduct “formal interviews” and not put specifics of allegation to witnesses – T emailed 8 witnesses asking for confirmation whether they witnessed applicant being unfairly treated – 5 witnesses responded no unfair treatment – Applicant requested T to put specifics to witnesses, however, T declined as M would conduct full investigation – Preliminary investigation concluded applicant’s allegations without substance – Authority found applicant given opportunity to make and explain complaints, however investigation not fair and full inquiry – Found inquiry not independent as T relied on M’s advice regarding proper procedures – Found inquiry not thorough as specifics not put to witnesses and no interviews conducted when witnesses exhibited fear of recrimination – Found T made cursory efforts to follow up on witnesses who did not reply to email – Found M did not give consideration to T’s experience in conducting investigations of such nature and difficulties T faced – Found preliminary conclusion may be true however not fairly reached – Disadvantage unjustified – REMEDIES – Authority found 40 percent contributory conduct appropriate – Found applicant declined supportive advice from respondent, declined counselling, resisted changing practices after performance reviews and applicant’s overall conduct entitled respondent to doubt genuineness of complaints – Found compensation for humiliation of $5,000 appropriate – Authority declined to make recommendations on how investigation should be continued as applicant no longer respondent’s employee and respondent knew relevant principles on predetermination – Laboratory Technician |