Misconduct investigation highlights failures in handling workplace harassment

IPCA reveals critical findings on misconduct involving senior police officer

BY Sarah Dobson 01 Nov 2024

A recent investigation by New Zealand's Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) reveals critical findings on misconduct, specifically sexual harassment, involving a senior police officer and a junior officer.

The allegations came to light following a two-month secondment during which Officer B, a junior officer, was assigned under Officer A’s supervision. Officer B reported that Officer A’s inappropriate comments and behavior created an uncomfortable, even threatening atmosphere, especially toward the end of her assignment.

Though Officer A’s misconduct was verbal, the sustained nature and escalation of his comments caused Officer B to fear potential physical misconduct, said the report. Upon completion of her secondment, Officer B formally lodged a complaint with the police, prompting the IPCA to investigate both the reported misconduct and the subsequent employment process.

The investigation raises critical issues for HR, highlighting the necessity of a zero-tolerance approach toward harassment. As Judge Kenneth Johnston KC, Chair of the IPCA, states, "Workplace harassment is a breach of professional values and must be addressed rigorously. This case demonstrates the need for fair processes, clear communication, and sustained support for complainants.”

Findings on misconduct and harassment

The IPCA investigation revealed that Officer A’s behavior did indeed meet the definition of sexual harassment under section 108(1)(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, as well as section 62 of the Human Rights Act 1993. This was further compounded by Officer A’s failure to maintain professional boundaries, particularly given his leadership role, which amplified the inappropriateness of his actions.

Key findings from the IPCA investigation included:

Inappropriate Engagement: Officer A became overly involved in his colleagues’ private lives, making inappropriate comments that often crossed professional boundaries, particularly regarding female officers and crime victims.

Failure to take responsibility: Officer A showed no remorse or insight into his actions, suggesting an underlying issue of accountability within the workplace.

Breach of conduct standards: The findings confirmed a breach of police policies and values, reflecting a clear violation of professional standards within the organization.

For HR leaders, these findings reiterate the importance of enforcing workplace conduct policies. Senior staff must exemplify respect and integrity, fostering a safe environment. Formal training on recognizing boundaries, particularly for leadership, can prevent similar situations and create a supportive workplace culture.

Shortcomings in police's response and investigation

A notable aspect of the IPCA’s report was its critique of the police’s handling of the complaint and the employment process. In response to Officer B’s allegations, police initiated an informal inquiry, culminating in a planned disciplinary meeting. However, before the meeting took place, Officer A resigned, leaving the process incomplete.

The IPCA highlighted several failures in the police’s approach to the case:

Lack of formality in investigations: The police’s decision not to take formal statements from Officers A and B failed to meet the necessary standard of a rigorous harassment inquiry. Moving directly to a disciplinary meeting implied a lack of comprehensive investigation and suggested that Officer B’s allegations were implicitly accepted, a step that violated procedural fairness.
Predetermined outcome: The language in the disciplinary meeting letter suggested an assumption of guilt, raising concerns about natural justice and objectivity. As a matter of fairness, investigations should be thorough and impartial, ensuring both the complainant’s and the respondent’s rights are protected.
Poor communication and support: The report highlighted that police communication with both officers was sporadic, informal, and at times inaccurate. Moreover, Officer B received little support during the process, underscoring the need for organizations to maintain open, structured communication with all parties in such cases.