Fictional Case: Amanda Lee v BrightTech Pty Ltd
Year: 2024
Forum: Fair Work Commission (FWC)
Background:
Amanda Lee, a project manager at BrightTech Pty Ltd, lodged a formal complaint alleging ongoing bullying and harassment by her supervisor, Daniel Carter. Amanda claimed that Daniel frequently humiliated her in team meetings, excluded her from critical decision-making processes, and made demeaning comments about her performance in private conversations.
BrightTech Pty Ltd initiated an internal investigation, conducted by the HR team, and ultimately dismissed Amanda’s complaint, stating there was “insufficient evidence” to substantiate her claims. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Amanda sought recourse through the FWC.
Investigation Process:
- Initial Complaint Review: Amanda submitted written details of her allegations, listing specific dates and examples of the behaviour.
- Interviews Conducted: The HR investigator interviewed Amanda, Daniel, and three team members who worked closely with them.
- Final Report: The investigation concluded that Amanda’s allegations were “unsupported” and closed the matter without disciplinary action against Daniel.
Procedural Flaws Identified:
- Failure to Properly Define Bullying and Harassment:
- The investigator did not clearly establish whether Daniel’s behaviour met the definition of bullying under the Fair Work Act 2009, which includes repeated unreasonable behaviour creating a risk to health and safety.
- Demeaning comments and exclusionary practices were dismissed as “management style” without further review.
2. Insufficient Evidence Gathering:
- Witnesses were asked generalised questions such as, “Have you ever seen Daniel behave inappropriately?” instead of specific queries relating to Amanda’s allegations.
- Critical documents, such as email records and meeting minutes, were not reviewed despite Amanda citing them as evidence.
3. Inadequate Support for the Complainant:
- Amanda was not offered a support person during the interviews.
- She was not informed of the investigation’s progress, leaving her feeling sidelined.
4. Bias and Prejudgment:
- The investigator relied heavily on Daniel’s account and dismissed Amanda’s allegations as “personal grievances.”
- The final report used language that appeared to favour Daniel, undermining the perception of impartiality.
FWC Ruling:
The FWC criticised BrightTech’s handling of the investigation, ruling that the procedural flaws led to a denial of natural justice. Key findings included:
- The investigation failed to consider whether Daniel’s behaviour constituted bullying under legal definitions.
- The lack of thorough evidence gathering undermined the credibility of the findings.
- Amanda’s claims were not taken seriously, potentially discouraging other employees from reporting bullying or harassment.
While the FWC could not order disciplinary action against Daniel, it recommended that BrightTech review its investigation processes and provide Amanda with an apology.
Lessons Learned:
- Define Bullying and Harassment:
- Ensure allegations are assessed against established definitions, such as those outlined in the Fair Work Act or workplace policies.
2. Thorough Evidence Collection:
- Review all relevant documents, emails, and communications. Ask witnesses detailed, specific questions related to the allegations.
3. Provide Support to Complainants:
- Offer a support person, regular updates, and a clear understanding of the investigation process.
4. Impartial Investigations:
- Investigators must remain neutral, avoid making assumptions, and ensure their findings are based solely on evidence.
Application for Employers:
This case study underscores the importance of conducting workplace bullying investigations with care and precision. A flawed process not only damages trust but also exposes employers to legal and reputational risks. Employers should invest in investigator training and clear policies to ensure all complaints are handled fairly and lawfully.