When doing this type of workplace investigation, we need to consider whether there is a greater than 50% chance that the allegation happened or did not happen (as the case maybe). You don’t need to be certain, you don’t need to be 100% sure, you need to be more than 50% sure. Back to Simon’s broken arm. In this case the two contradictory allegations (the push or the making up of the whole incident) required one to be less likely and therefore making the other more likely. After considering the evidence, we were of the firm view that the evidence supported that it was more likely Simon made up the entire incident.
There were two reliable witnesses who gave evidence about the demeanour of both Simon and David in the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident that was entirely inconsistent with any type of confrontation between the two of them. So, after due consideration, the decision was made to terminate Simon, and yes, we are aware of Briginshaw.
It is important to note that Simon had a broken arm, we assume that he fell over. However, we do not need to prove how his arm was broken. Just whether David did, or did not do it.
This can be tough if done inside a business. There are so many layers of people and preconceived ideas about people. Hence often the need for an external investigator. However, HR are often well positioned to conduct investigations as long as they are confident and have the training required. Speaking of training, please see the courses below.
UPCOMING WORKSHOPS FOR HR PRACTITIONERS:
We are delighted to announce two new workshops in a Melbourne CBD location:
Facilitating Difficult Conversations In The Workplace – 26 & 27 July 2017
Workplace Investigations Training – 7 August 2017.
click here for more details
If you liked this blog you might also be interested in: