Misconduct allegations are on the rise in Australia – here's how HR can get ahead of the issue
After a bullying and harassment review recommended an increased focus on training for staff and chiefs regarding their obligations, New South Wales government ministers took part in a 3.5-hour workplace behaviour training session that outlined new employee conduct rules that have left ministers fuming.
The training session, conducted by an independent diversity and inclusion consultant, advised ministers to not use the word ‘mate’, avoid banter and gossip, not drink alcohol in the office, and make sure to extend an invitation to all colleagues if you’re heading out to lunch or after-work drinks.
Minsters labelled the training as ‘PC insanity”. If something as simple as using the word mate is going to be seen as employee misconduct in Australian workforces, we’re very likely to see a rise in misconduct cases, with one minister musing that he keeps alcohol in his office simply to placate employees.
Read more: Culture shock derails mergers
Ahead of a potential uptake in employee misconduct in the workplace, HRD spoke with Kyle Scott, director at Australian Business Lawyers and Advisors (ALBA) about workplace misconduct and some of the common mistakes made by employers when dealing with workplace misconduct.
There are a lot of costs to businesses involved in misconduct proceedings. From potential staff turnover and workforce productivity downturn to legal proceedings and reputational damage.
“I think the inescapable reality with workplace investigations is it almost always results in degradation of relationships of people involved,” Scott said. “And that is sometimes an unavoidable reality of having to deal with a matter.”
We live in a world of tick-box compliance and the need to follow the official channel for everything is more necessary than ever before, but we’re in a war on talent and the cost of hiring a new employee is higher than ever before – a recent survey found the cost of replacing an employee in Australia is around $10,000.
Scott told HRD that often companies will make the initial decision to go down the path of an official investigation too quickly, without considering whether there's better ways to deal with the matter.
“My experience,” said Scott, “is the client decides to investigate, then they get a couple of weeks down the path, it becomes apparent that they could’ve dealt with this in a less formal, quicker way.”
Scott said the second most common mistake he comes across is employers lacking robust reasoning for their conclusions.
Read more: Culture is key to surviving COVID cuts
“If you're dealing with a matter where there might be a dismissal, you might then be looking at some kind of court case or an unfair dismissal,” Scott told HRD. “The business will want to be able to hold up their investigation process as being defensible, and the findings that they've made, be defensible. I think that's a really important part of the process that sometimes people fall down on.
Scott explained that employers are generally good at understanding what the issues are and gathering relevant evidence to intuitively form a view on whether an allegation can be proven, but there’s often a lack of detail around the reasoning and explanation for why they have made the findings that they have.
“You want to be able to demonstrate that the conclusions you've come to, were properly reached, having regard to all of the evidence, and that you've explained why you've made that decision.”
