.jpg)
The recent high court case brought against Deloitte by one of their former managers has garnered the type of headlines such prominent organisations strive to avoid:
Deloitte denies protecting ‘stalkerish’ ex-partner after affair with junior(fnlondon.com)
Deloitte denies it failed to protect former female employee from bullying and harassment| Financial Times (ft.com)
Deloitte denies failing to protect ex-employee from bullying (cityam.com)
How has this case managed to reach the high court?
The case involves serious allegations by a former employee that she was subjected to “stalkerish” and “abusive” behaviour on the part of one of Deloitte’s (now ex) partners following the breakdown of a relationship between the two of them in around 2016/17. She alleges that she has suffered psychiatric harm and that Deloitte failed to prevent the abusive behaviour towards her.
According to the reports, after raising the matter internally with HR and it being highlighted to the firm’s ethics officer, the former employee alleged that the ensuing investigation was not impartial as it was conducted by a person who sat in the same team as the alleged perpetrator. Deloitte is reported as saying that its “informal ethics investigation” was appropriate and not aimed at defending its partner or the firm.
The matter has now escalated to high court litigation which could take months or years to be resolved, will be distressing to the people involved and potentially create reputational damage to the firm.
The importance of impartiality
This case highlights the risk of seeking to run a more informal investigation into potentially serious allegations. It seems likely that the intent here would have been to design and operate a fair and timely process. However, in order to address the concerns raised, an appearance of any lack of impartiality can be fatal to the objective of bringing resolution to the situation.
Whilst an objectively impartial investigation will not guarantee “successful” resolution, being able to demonstrate fairness and the application of a clearly defined procedure will help ensure a robust process that can stand up to scrutiny and maintain the confidence of those involved. The importance of ensuring that parties to an investigation (including the complainant, the subject and other witnesses) have confidence that their voices are being heard and that there is transparency in the process cannot be overstated.
3 top tips to conduct workplace investigations
Having reflected on the reported case, our 3 top tips for an effective investigation are to ensure:
1. Applicable internal policies are in place
Ensure that applicable policies and procedures are in place to anticipate the reality of how different people might raise concerns and what will happen in practice.
2. The appointed investigator can act without bias
Ensure that the investigator can act without bias or the perception of bias.
3. Investigators act with fairness, empathy and respect
Ensure that investigators create a supportive environment where witnesses feel safe engaging with the process.
In our experience, this three-step approach is most likely to ensure engagement and facilitate fair outcomes, enable decision-makers to make well-grounded decisions and support or restore the parties’ trust and confidence going forward.
Conducting independent workplace investigations
As you can see, the workplace investigation process requires a well thought out approach to avoid distress, ensure compliance and minimise reputational damage. Whilst navigating investigations may feel complex, many support systems can help your organisation achieve the best possible outcomes.
At byrne·dean, we offer independent workplace investigations and mediation. We are comfortable with difficult issues and always treat people with kindness and respect. We undertake our work in an open, fair and independent way, bringing diverse experience across employment law, HR and employee relations.
Want to find out more about workplace investigations and mediation?
Contact us to find out more.
FAQs
What happens in an investigation at work?
A work investigation typically starts when a concern is raised. An investigator is then assigned to outline the scope, identify key issues and prepare questions. Evidence is gathered, and interviews are carried out with relevant parties. The evidence and witness statements are then reviewed to establish the facts, and an investigation report is prepared. An organisation then takes action based on the findings, ensuring fair decisions are aligned with legal requirements.
What is the difference between a review and an investigation?
A ‘review’ refers to a broader overview of practices in the workplace and usually results in changes to systems or procedures. On the other hand, an ‘investigation’ is focused on a specific incident or allegation. It has the goal of reaching a defined conclusion about wrongdoing or accountability that may lead to disciplinary action.
How long can an investigation last at work?
A workplace investigation can take anywhere from a few weeks to several months. Straightforward cases with limited parties and clear evidence may take 1-2 weeks. Complex situations involving multiple allegations can take 2-6 months or more. Communication with all parties involved about timelines is essential to maintain trust in the process.
What to say during an HR investigation?
When responding to HR investigations, focus on providing factual, specific details. Answer the questions directly, and if you don’t know the answer, be honest. Stay professional, and ask for clarification if you don’t understand a question. If you have documents, emails, or other evidence, mention them during your statement and share them as requested.
More from
Cathy Oliver
