Code of conduct | Really Independent Investigations |
|
|
|
I know of external investigators whose USP is that the word "independent" eliminates any perception of bias, but where the perceived and actual degree of bias is perhaps higher than if the investigation was conducted by the alleged bullies in person. If you want to reduce the risk of an employment tribunal claim, and ideally see working relationships return to normal, disputes need resolving without any bias and with minimal risk of perceived bias Humane Resources Ltd offers a service that can be applied to grievances, disciplinary matters and appeals. It differs from known competitors in that the company’s undertakings include:-
There is a conflict of interests if an investigator acts for the employer and not the employee, in so far as it breaches the employer’s implied contractual duty to conduct such proceedings fairly. Fairness requires impartiality and objectivity, which is impossible if the investigator has an expressed allegiance to one party and not the other. You could not engage your lawyer to conduct an investigation and realistically expect to avert a tribunal claim on that basis. To avoid such problems HRL treats both parties to the dispute as clients of equal worth, and commits to treat each party with equal fairness. Additionally:-
If you've read any pages on this web site you'll have noticed HRL is anti workplace bullying. This means we are pro-employer and pro-employee. In financial terms, the damage bullying does to employers is far more significant that the damage it does to individuals. If you think bullying is a problem for your business, engage us. Why?In an ideal working environment, there is no bullying. Unfortunately, because bullying is a natural human behaviour, it happens, and when it goes on unchecked, it leads to serious problems for employers and employee. Perhaps the biggest mistake an employer’s officer can make in relation to bullying is to respond with denial to a suggestion that bullying could be happening. If the suggestion arrives in the form of an employee’s grievance, and the employee is already sending in sick notes with a diagnosis of “stress” or similar, denial is the most effective way to make a bad situation much worse. One reason people respond with denial may be an instinctive fear of litigation, coupled with the belief that the risk of litigation will reduce if efforts are made to discredit the source of the allegation. I’m aware of several approaches to this which ultimately contrive to create an adversarial rift between employer and complainant, while the alleged bully is protected and sometimes promoted to fortify the impression that all is well. Ultimately it does not work, and it leads to employers being stuck with the person whose conduct was the original problem, while paying out money to former employees who lost their jobs because of it. A more sensible choice is to treat the complaint as a symptom of a problem, and determine to get to the root of it, just as you would if, say, your painted products were found to have contamination in the paint. If your business relied on turning out high quality products, you would apply an urgent focus on locating and sorting out the source of the contaminant. Similarly, if one of your employees goes sick with a potentially occupationally induced illness, you will be more effective focusing your energy on finding the cause, rather than bemoaning the effect. Employee(s) whose behaviour is implicated by an allegation of bullying will invariably have established social and economic connections within the organisation. Environmental factors such as the size of the organisation or the seniority of the affected employees can mean it is very difficult to identify a person to investigate the matter with total impartiality. The investigator must not have an interest in any particular outcome, except that it is objective, fair and thus aligned to the employer’s rights and legal duties in relation to all the employees concerned. The investigation process should ideally be done without any ‘behind the scenes’ communication between investigator and affected employees. Even where it is possible to internally appoint an unbiased investigator, there remains a risk that he or she will be perceived to have bias. One alternative that some think avoids the risk of perceived bias is to appoint an investigator from outside the organisation. Unfortunately, that does not always work and may actually increase the risk of perceived or actual bias. Where the external investigator has a professional duty to avoid a conflict of interests, and where he or she interprets this by acting for the client employer - and not the employee - the impression of impartiality relies entirely on faith in the investigator’s professionalism and perhaps, the word "independent". Where the investigator’s fee is paid on completion, an investigator may be concerned about the risk of not being paid if he or she reaches a conclusion that is adverse to the client. If the investigator provides related services such as training, other HR and particularly litigation services, the investigation might be regarded as a marketing opportunity that would be destroyed if the outcome was adverse to the paying client. Quite apart from the unfairness, while an external investigator who is in fact biased may seem like an effective way to reduce the risk of litigation and other undesirable repercussions, it could very easily make litigation more likely. HRL's service is something readers will either love or hate. If you like the idea, please contact me to see how it could work for you. Adrian Melia |
| < Prev |
|---|