In this webinar Caroline Reidy, Managing Director from the HR Suite, discusses the current topical challenges being encountered in complying with the Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work. She is joined by Rolanda Markey from the Legal Island Knowledge Team.

Together they discuss and answer questions sent in by the listeners.  

Legal-Island's webinars and podcasts are sponsored by MCS Group. MCS help people find careers that match their skill sets perfectly as well as supporting employers that build high-performing businesses by connecting them with the most talented and right fit of person. For more information on MCS please visit www.mcsgroup.com

The Recording

Transcription below:

Rolanda: Hello and good morning, everyone, and welcome to our webinar with myself, Rolanda Markey from Legal-Island, and Caroline Reidy, Managing Director of The HR Suite.

Legal-Island's webinars and podcasts are sponsored by MCS Group, and MCS help people find careers that match their skill sets perfectly as well as supporting employers that build high-performing businesses by connecting them with the most talented candidates in the marketplace. And if you're interested in finding out a wee bit more about how MCS can help you, then head to www.MCSGroup.jobs.

Now, if you're new to our webinars, you are more than welcome. Caroline is an expert at this. Thank you, Caroline, as always. But let me tell you a wee bit just about Caroline.

She is a past member of the Low Pay Commission and also an adjudicator in the Workplace Relations Commission. She has completed a Master's in Human Resources through the University of Limerick. She is CIPD accredited as well as being a trained mediator. And she has worked across various areas of HR for over 20 years in both the Kerry Group and in the retail and hospitality sector, where she was the Operations and HR Director of the Garvey Group prior to setting up The HR Suite in 2009.

Caroline speaks widely and writes articles and papers on thought leadership in relation to the future landscape of HR and the challenges and opportunities that that presents for both employers and employees.

Caroline is also a regular speaker at the Legal-Island Annual Review of Employment Law, which will be held this year on 30 November and 1 December. Caroline will be talking around bullying and harassment, so I'm very much looking forward to that session.

In this month's webinar, what Caroline is going to look at is . . .We have talked in a few previous webinars about bullying and about the code of practice, but Caroline is going to focus today on some of the sort of compliance issues that have been arising for employers in relation to applying the code in the workplace. So she's going to take you through some of the key issues in relation to that.

And then, if you have any questions for Caroline, please pop them into the question box. And we will have time at the end for some Q&A.

Now, just while we're on the topic of bullying and raising awareness of bullying, Legal-Island does have a 45-minute eLearning Course, which is specifically designed for all employees in the workplace, to help raise awareness of what bullying is and how it should be dealt with in the workplace. And as always, awareness is really important with a lot of topics for employees.

Webinar attendees are entitled to a 50% off special offer for this eLearning Course. And if you'd like to find out a wee bit more about it, you will get information in the follow-up email to this webinar, but also pop Debbie an email, the address is on the screen, and she can send you a quote for your organisation.

So if you have any questions then, please pop them into the question box, and we will take those at the end.

Meanwhile, Caroline, it is just over to you for today's topic on

Compliance issues arising from bullying.

Caroline: Brilliant. Super. Thank you so much, Rolanda, and thank you all. We've got a really good turnout to today's webinar. So obviously, you are all very aware of the hugely positive insights the code of practice in relation to bullying and the code of practice in relation to harassment have introduced. And I'm a really big fan of both. I think they're really well thought out. I think they're very comprehensive. And they're a brilliant guidance for employers and employer representatives.

But the big challenge now is to ensure that we as employers are implementing the code of practice in the workplace. And I suppose we're finding that a lot of employers in making that transition are encountering queries, issues, and some challenges, all of which can be overcome quite easily.

But in today's webinar, I'm going to chat through to you and just remind you of some of the key top tips as we try and ensure compliance.

So in The HR Suite, obviously, we help companies to draft their policies and we also help them update the policies that they currently have. We also do investigations, and I'm drawing on all of that experience as I talk to you in this session.

So the first thing I would say to you is there are two really good codes of practice. And even though they're codes of practice, which means that they are guidance documents, the weight that they hold is very important from an employee and employer perspective to show that we are following the best practice standards as recommended by the WRC and the Health and Safety Authority and IHREC depending on the appropriate code.

So then I suppose it's important to ensure we update our policies to reflect that. Even though the bullying code of practice is in place from 2021 Christmas, we find that a lot of employers have still not updated their own internal policies to reflect the new code.

And the challenge with that is if a complaint comes in, you must use the policy that's in place at that time, because that's what the employee is expecting to be used. That's what all the parties have signed up to at that point in time.

So my first key takeaway today is, if you haven't done so, make sure that you update your current policies to reflect the new codes of practice. And that is different in relation to the bullying code of practice and in relation to the harassment code of practice.

Therein lies a challenge also. So both of these codes of practice were developed by . . . the bullying one by the Health and Safety Authority and the WRC, and the harassment one by IHREC, the Irish Human Rights Authority. And as a result, they both follow different procedures for the employee in relation to managing a complaint.

And for many employees, they use words like, "I am being bullied and harassed", without really understanding . . . The definition of bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, and harassment has to be linked to one of the nine equality grounds and understanding the definition of sexual harassment as well.

So, as a result of that, we have to make sure that as a company, you've decided in your policy whether you're going to follow two separate procedures of complaint, or whether you're going to follow one. And that's something that needs to be clearly outlined to the employee who has a grievance, but also to the employee who could be the subject of the complaint.

Also, the new bullying code of practice, I want to take you through some of the steps, because for some employers that we're dealing with, they're not quite clear in relation to the role of the different parties within the code of practice and within the policy as a result.

So first, I'm going to talk to you about the contact person. And obviously, we help organisations train contact persons, and I feel that contact persons are a really, really positive addition to any organisation. And they absolutely are designed to try and nip issues in the bud early and provide the role of signposting to employees within the organisation that may have an issue.

So the recommendation in the code of practice is that you will train contact persons at different levels within the organisation. And the idea of the contact person is that somebody can go to the contact person and raise a query in relation to an issue they may be having, in relation to getting guidance on what is the best approach to deal with that. And their job is exactly that, to guide and to signpost.

It's really important that those persons are trained to ensure that they don't overstep the mark and get into an area that that's not their role. We've had scenarios where contact persons have been named, but not trained, and instead of putting water on the fire, they're putting fuel because they don't understand their role, nor do they understand the different definitions in relation to the legislation.

So really important that you consider "Have you got your contact persons nominated? Have you your contact persons trained?" Delighted to talk to anybody in relation to training those individuals. And again, they should be dispersed throughout the organisation.

The number of contact persons should be prorated to the number you have within your organisation. And each organisation is different in that regard. So you're going to make a judgement as to what you think is most suitable in relation to that. People can attend individual or they can attend as a company course.

After the contact person, then, it's important to understand what is the role after that in relation to the new code of practice. And this is where many, again, are falling into being unclear as to what exactly the obligation is, and particularly in relation to overlapping into areas that are outside the remit of the informal process, for example, and they've gone into formal.

I suppose my advice always is to consider mediation if it's interpersonal conflict. Mediation can be considered at any stage, but it's voluntary, confidential, and as a result, the parties need to agree to that mediation.

And mediation needs to be carried out by a trained mediator. I've seen many occasions where a person who's not a trained mediator tries to mediate and calls it mediation. But because they're not trained, the parties haven't signed a mediation agreement. And also, the process overflows into the work environment.

And remember, mediator [inaudible 00:10:52] go into a bubble. It's all about the mediator helping the parties find a future without the problems of the past. Nobody is guilty. Nobody is innocent. It's very helpful for interpersonal conflict for that reason, because it's future-focussed.

So again, just being clear in relation to what is mediation and what is not mediation is really important.

And I would say that's another big NB in terms of the process and a manager saying, "Look, I'll mediate the situation for you". Choosing to do that is not mediation and could, I suppose, end up getting the company into more hot water than helping the situation. In most scenarios where a manager brings two parties together without being a trained mediator, as you will know, it doesn't end well. So again, really important in relation to that.

The other area that has come up a lot in terms of the challenges is in relation to GDPR and confidentiality. So really the role of the parties that are involved in any part of bullying or harassment allegations, that we notify everybody from the very outset of the importance of confidentiality to the parties, and breach of such confidentiality will lead to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

There's a fine line between breach of confidentiality and it being malicious defamation of somebody's character. So again, a really important area that we would flag and make sure the parties are clear about in relation to this whole area.

So then, if I move on, I suppose the next area is the secondary informal part of the process. And this secondary informal stage requires a nominated person who isn't the contact person to address the complaint. And at that stage, the complaint can be verbal or written. They investigate and agree how to progress in relation to how to resolve that issue.

However, be really clear that if that person decides that there is bullying, then they must put in place preventative measures. And that's really, really important. Also, they're required to ensure they manage the paper trail in relation to that. And that's really important, because again, when it's part of the informal process, people are making the mistake that it's all then to be done informally, i.e., with no paper trail. But that's not the case in relation to the recommendation.

So that's the secondary informal in relation to that nominated person. And I'm picking today what we see as the kind of key challenges that are coming up for people. As I said from the outset, I think these codes of practice are excellent, and they definitely are best practice codes. But it's just making sure that we've updated our policies, we've trained our managers, and trained our staff in relation to these new procedures and these new processes.

And ultimately, our aim in doing all that training is prevention is better than cure. The more training that we do to make people aware of what's acceptable, what's not acceptable, the less of these we're going to end up doing, which is better for everybody.

So, next, I'm going to talk to you about the formal process. And in particular, I'm going to talk to you about the area of investigations. I suppose we've had a number of challenges in relation to making sure, first of all, the closure of that informal stage has been set out in writing and, again, any appropriate next steps have been taken.

But if the process escalates to the formal process, which it can do, one of the key elements now is that we need to make sure that at the preliminary stage, when we get the complaint in writing that's signed and dated, we assess that it meets the definition of bullying as defined in the legislation.

And that's a really important difference, whereas before, any issue that somebody raised could go straight to that process. So really important that we assess that.

And sometimes if you have a number of complaints . . . And again, you can get a third party. The code of practice allows that for you to do at that stage should you so wish. I know, for a lot of people, one of the key challenges is we don't have enough people in our organisation to have a separate contact person, separate person to manage the secondary informal, separate person to manage the investigation, etc., as the process goes on. So you can outsource any of those stages should you so wish.

Make sure that you're clear as to the definition. And again, in writing, the person needs to outline the rationale as to why it met the definition or why it didn't.

Also remember that the full complaint doesn't all have to be categorised as it all meets the definition or it doesn't. You can have a case that there were three allegations, and two of those meet the definition and the third doesn't. And that might still be grievance under the grievance procedure, but it just doesn't follow suit that it automatically goes to investigation under the disciplinary process.

So next, I suppose, is to talk to you about the area of investigations. In my experience, we've come across investigations in name but not investigations in expected standards of what we would expect in line with the rules of natural justice, or in line with any of our code of practices, or that SI146 that we use to ensure we've got a high bar in relation to separation of process, etc.

So when you're doing an investigation, the terms of reference that are drafted for that investigation need to be really comprehensive and make it clear to both the investigator and the parties involved exactly what's going to happen. So really important that you, as the organisation, manage those terms of reference.

Whoever you're getting to do your investigation, whether that's somebody internal or an external person like ourselves, it's really important you agree timelines with the parties to make sure that this process can be done within a reasonable and accepted timeline.

Again, I've seen many investigations where the investigator starts the investigation, and then they're on holidays for a number of weeks, or they have other work commitments, and it delays the process. It's got to be fair and reasonable to the parties, understanding the huge amount of stress and anxiety and emotional challenge that all this process is presenting to your employees within the organisation. Hence why we always offer employee assistance programmes and any other support to the parties while they go through this process.

So, again, manage the timelines and remember that you, as an organisational perspective, you're managing the investigation. The investigator is carrying out the process, but you need to make sure that it's meeting the standards that you are setting around timeline, making sure the terms of reference are correct and comprehensive, and making sure that you get a comprehensive investigation report at the end of the process.

When I'm doing investigations, the report, obviously, is the output of those investigations. But making sure the parties get that fair opportunity to be heard is crucially important, because if they feel they've got that fair opportunity to be heard, often even if they're not happy with the outcome, they'll feel that they did get that fair process, which is really, really important.

So again, manage that investigation stage really closely and in line with your standards and your terms of reference.

The other key element to be aware of is that separation of process. So you've got somebody who does the investigation, somebody who does the outcome, somebody who does the appeal.

And make sure that you don't have somebody, for example, from HR behind the scenes who's involved in all three stages. Again, that's where if they're advising what they think should be the outcome, etc., they can be involved in that separation of process falling down if it were to be challenged. So again, just be careful of that.

So the other key points are that confusion in relation to what is bullying, what is harassment, what is sexual harassment. And the codes of practice are very clear in relation to the definitions of each. I think the important thing for us as employers is that we're reminding and reinforcing to employees the differences and the importance of our dignity and respect culture within organisations.

And that's really up there now on a priority list at the moment with employers. So your vicarious liability of ensuring that you've updated your policies, that you've also done training for your managers and for your employees.

And remember, the training is not just to say you've done the training. It's really positive from a cultural perspective if you tailor it to suit your organisation and bring in your core values from an organisational perspective as well. It really can enhance the culture, and obviously help with retention in the very tight labour market we have at the moment.

So, Rolanda, I know we have a lot of questions that came in before today's webinar, and a lot of questions during the webinar today. If you'd like, I'll take some questions, and then I'll also maybe do a summary at the end, if that's all right. I'm just conscious of time. It always flies on us in these sessions.

Rolanda:  It does. Thank you, Caroline. Now, we have had a couple of questions, or I suppose points about mediation. Somebody is saying, "Thank you very much for emphasising the importance of the mediator is appropriately trained".

Now, one query we had was,

"If you're lucky enough to have somebody within your organisation who is a trained mediator and they happen to work in HR, is it okay if they mediate if they are not involved in either the before or after stages of any complaint?"

Caroline: So if the parties are independent, and they can stand over that independence, and they're not involved in the process, they absolutely can. The challenge, Rolanda, often is perception becomes reality.

Say you and I work in the same organisation and we occasionally go for tea together or we know each other professionally, etc. The employee may feel that that mediator isn't independent.

And obviously, every mediator has their code of practice to ensure that they are independent and act independently. But also, mediation brings a really positive opportunity for parties to go into a bubble. We do what we do in mediation in terms of trying to find a future without the problems of the past.

But the parties really get an opportunity to be heard, and we try and get underneath the iceberg to identify what are the real challenges and problems that are going on with this relationship. Often, the straw that broke the camel's back is only the straw that broke the camel's back. It's not the root cause.

And what I find is that sometimes people are not as open with an internal mediator, because again, they're putting up the defences that they don't want to be seen to have done something wrong. So, oftentimes, when it's somebody independent, you get parties to have their guard down more and are more open and transparent.

I would leave that be the guide of the mediator, but if you've got an objection, I'd always take that into account. If somebody is objecting to everybody involved in the process, obviously, we can't accept that. But if somebody is objecting to, "Look, I don't want that mediator because I feel they have a personal relationship", or, "I don't want that person to be the outcome manager because . . ." I would always take that into account and make your best decision whether it's appropriate for that person to recuse themselves.

But the key thing is you want them to feel they've had a fair process, and you're not starting on the right foot if they're raising flags like that.

Rolanda: Yes. And I suppose the size of the organisation might have an impact on that. A smaller organisation where everyone knows everyone, it may be harder to be perceived to be independent, even though you are an appropriately trained mediator.

Sorry, I was going to say something else about mediation there. And the other thing maybe as well, as I'm sure you've probably advised, is maybe doing the mediation offsite, so not in-house, not on the premises. That removal from the premises helps the mediation process somewhat, I would have thought.

Caroline:  I would say mediation . . . It's powerful. I'm a really big fan of it, especially with interpersonal conflict. If we go down the road of the formal route, etc., somebody is right and somebody is wrong, and it's very hard to rebuild the relationship that you require people to be professional in the work environment.

Whereas mediation . . . And it's not the solving of everything, of course, and every employee has the right to go through an investigation, should they choose that, once they meet the definition, obviously. But mediation is powerful. And all of the additional measures, like doing it offsite, like doing it in-person where applicable, are dependent on each case turning on its own facts.

But I've also done a lot of mediation remotely during the last couple of years and it's equally worked very well because people are in their own comfortable surroundings and they feel that that has worked very well for them.

So I think we have to take into account people's individual needs and preferences, and also what's going to work best. And sometimes you'll do the first mediations on Teams or Zoom, and then you'll know we need to do the next one in person. But sometimes it just works on Teams, and it's fine.

But I think as a mediator, you want to get to the best place for all the parties and you just have to consider each case turns into its own facts in that regard. 

Rolanda: Yeah, and be flexible about how you're prepared to do it, I suppose.

Now, just looking at the processes and the involvement of HR, and you mentioned about having separate people at different stages, I suppose in smaller organisations it's not always possible to have individual HR people involved in separate stages. So when HR has no decision they can rule, can they be involved at different stages as kind of an overseer to make sure the process is being followed appropriately?

Caroline: I think you have to be very careful because what happens is . . . I've been in many where the HR person has overstepped the mark, where somebody who's a manager might be doing the investigation or they might be doing the outcome, and they say things like, "What do you think would be the appropriate sanction here?" And all of a sudden, you're saying, "Well, I think it should be a final written warning". And the person who's doing the appeal is asking you the same thing and you're saying, "I think it should be this". Or a letter has been drafted that's giving the person a steer on what the outcome should be.

Because you have so much knowledge, it can be dangerous in a scenario like this, because for an inexperienced person who has been given the job of doing the investigation or doing the outcome or doing the appeal, the challenge is your expertise might guide all those three people through the process.

But ultimately, you now have become the judge, the jury, and executioner, for want of a better way of putting it, i.e., you're involved. You're involved and there are elements of your footprints or fingerprints on all three stages, and that means that separation of process that you've tried so hard to achieve by having three individuals no longer actually stands up.

So that will be the "tread carefully". In these scenarios equally, the investigation is the hardest part of the process, I would argue. So I always say get your best person to do your investigation.

Or if you're outsourcing one of the stages, outsource the investigation, because once you do a good investigation based on really good terms of reference and have a really good investigation report, you've done an awful lot to really help your process.

And then it makes it much easier for the person who's the outcome manager or the appeal manager thereafter, even though people can obviously raise additional points, etc. But it does make the other roles easier if that's done well. Whereas if that's not done well, that becomes a real challenge.

And unfortunately, we see an awful lot of them not done well, not comprehensive, not following the terms of reference, lacking comprehensive terms of reference, lacking a reasoning for a decision to be arrived at, not linking it to the policies. There are lots of reasons why it can be flawed, and important that we address those.

Rolanda: Now, we have actually some questions about policy and some about investigations. Maybe talk about investigations now that you've mentioned that. You talked about the importance of having the clear, accurate terms of reference. Do they have to be agreed with all parties?

Caroline:  Again, you've got to revisit your policy. And it's funny. Many organisations when we get involved, and we might be the investigator, for example, I say, "Can I see your policy?" and then we draft the terms of reference, and I would assist the company in drafting based on a template. But when they read their own policy, they'll go, "Gee, I didn't realise that was in our policy". So be clear on what your policy says. Most organisations won't be doing investigations too often, but you're following your policy in relation to it.

In relation to the terms of reference, I think it's very difficult to expect you're going to get it agreed by all parties. Again, I think if you receive an objection . . . so instead of asking for agreement, if you receive an objection, I've considered that objection in line with fair process, but I wouldn't necessarily automatically, unless your policy requires it, look for that agreement.

Sometimes you haven't even started, and you could be into a back and forth. But I would definitely consider any objections or anything any of the parties want to flag in relation to it.

Rolanda: Somebody is saying if the situation is so messy that it's difficult to identify whether it's bullying. I mean, we were chatting before how sometimes people don't know whether they're being bullied or harassed, they just know they're being treated in a way that they don't like. So you can't make assumptions whether it's bullying or harassment necessarily. You're saying, "Rolanda is complaining about the way in which Caroline has treated her in relation to the following".

I mean, could you proceed on that basis? And the point of investigation is to establish that these events occur? And if so, could they be viewed as bullying or could they be viewed as harassment? Or do you need to define that at the start?

Caroline: You need to because you need to decide which policy that you're investigating under. And the subject of the complaint needs to know what is the allegation that has been made against them.

Now, the definitions are quite clear. I've done a lot, obviously, of the preliminary investigations and a lot of investigations. I would say you would be in a position to define whether it meets the definition of bullying, harassment, or sexual harassment, or none of those definitions, and then it should go back to the grievance procedure.

So I would say it would be a very rare exception that you might be in a position to do that. And if you weren't, I would say you'd need to probe and get more information.

The expectation of fairness to both parties has to apply. So, for example, me as the employee, I can't know, "Well, somebody has a grievance against me", versus, "Somebody has an allegation of bullying". They're quite different. And the seriousness and the potential punity linked to each potentially could be different as well, and how I treat it in terms of how I go into it with representation or not, etc., might be different.

So I think it's important that we implement the code of practice, update our policies to reflect that, and then we make sure that we go through that process transparently. And again, we explain and justify our rationale and decisions in relation to it.

Rolanda: We had a query in before the webinar about sort of investigation that involves a third-party organisation, for example. Who would have access to that investigation report or who should have access?

Caroline: In that example, Rolanda, you're saying that complaint came from a third party about one of our employees in-house?

Rolanda:  Yeah. Well, let's use that as an example. So that involves us having to speak to that third party, so they become involved in the investigation. Their evidence becomes relevant.

Caroline: Their evidence becomes relevant. So if somebody makes a complaint, we're going to confirm in the terms of reference who gets to see what. So anybody who makes a complaint, they have to be part of their terms of reference. In other words, as part of that invite that they're going to receive, they're going to be receiving that detailed terms of reference. In that, it will clearly outline what they will receive in relation to this process. And that's where all of that is agreed in advance before the parties ever get started.

It's no good waiting until the end when then they start asking questions and start saying things like, "Well, I thought this would be different and I thought . . ." The fact you've agreed to detailed terms of reference . . .

Hence why I flagged "terms of reference" as one of the challenges during this process. People don't probably make them comprehensive enough, or worse, again, don't do terms of reference. They just start an investigation without it being clear what's the policy, what are the allegations, who's going to see what, etc. That should all be pre-agreed in those terms of reference.

Rolanda:  A couple of questions then just about policy and process. So one of them was quite an interesting one about an organisation who is a charity, for example, and has board members and volunteers and directors. And I suppose the question is if you're drafting up a bullying policy, should you include those people as being involved?

So if someone has a complaint against a volunteer or a . . . I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. Should you include all of those people in a bullying policy, or should you have a separate policy for volunteers?

Caroline: So I would say you do one policy, one code of practice, one dignity and respect is normally the way we position it. And in that dignity and respect, it covers all of those typical people.

And again, more and more organisations are now up-skilling their board members and their volunteers. We're doing an awful lot more training for board members and volunteers, because they have such a big role to play and they are interacting quite a lot, particularly in the voluntary sector, with members of staff, etc.

So one of the biggest challenges is, as an employer, you have vicarious liability to ensure you've done all you can, and particularly in an organisation that has active board members that will be interacting a lot, they're key stakeholders that need to be aware.

And I would argue, in any organisation, doing board training and CPD for board members in relation to this area . . . I would do a tailored session that would be via webinar or via Zoom, as part of their CPD to make sure that they are up-skilled in relation to what that means in their organisation.

Rolanda: Yeah. So if they're not your employee, can you really compel them to engage in an investigation or a process?

Caroline: So if it's a member of the public, for example, no. But ultimately, we are obliged to try and achieve a comprehensive investigation. So we are obliged to try and do all we can to get them to be involved in the process. And ultimately, you've got to decide what weight you put on the fact that they either do engage in what they have to say or not, the same as any other evidence.

Rolanda: Okay. So just going back to the informal and the formal, and I suppose if we stick with bullying to maybe not confuse with harassment, if someone is trying to push to go straight to the formal process, is it okay to encourage them to try the informal route? Can you strongly encourage them to go through the contact and nominated processes?

Caroline: I would say if they're already talking about formal, the contact person rule is no longer an option. To me, the contact person is early intervention. "I'm not sure who I should go to. I'm not sure what this means". It's that stage early on in the process of, "Who should I talk to? What should I do? What are my options?"

So if the person is pushing for formal at that stage, realistically the most we can do is go through the alternative options so they understand them. Many, as I say, don't understand that secondary informal, and that it does require an investigation. It does require follow-up if the definition of bullying has been met. And we have to put in place any corrective action, including check-ins, etc., to make sure that the behaviour doesn't happen again.

So when people understand what that means, they're more open to potentially considering it. Whereas one of the challenges is that people think informal is just, "I have to go and talk to them myself, and I wouldn't be comfortable to do that. Therefore, I'm going to go straight to formal". That's not the case.

So again, that's where educating managers, educating the contact person, educating employees in relation to those options.

But also, again, back to the point where we started, which was any of these investigations, when they go serious to formal, of course they will happen on occasion, but there are no winners really.

Now, obviously, very serious allegations will go straight to formal, and the person will want it and that goes without saying. But in some of the more interpersonal conflict ones that aren't as serious, it's oftentimes much better for that to be dealt with through the informal or through the mediation.

Rolanda: Yeah, because sometimes people take sides and dig their heels in, and it doesn't really resolve the issue.

Good question here. When the definition of bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, is twice enough, or would we expect more often? So what is meant, I suppose, by repeated, and does it have to be the same behaviour?

Caroline: So I would say twice is enough, because ultimately the concern is there will be a third time and more. So, to me, that's sufficient to meet the definition. It's more than once.

And it doesn't have to be the exact same behaviour, but it needs to be the same type of behaviour. Ultimately, bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, so it needs to fit into that umbrella. Once there are two occasions of inappropriate behaviour . . . So one of those could be exclusion, and another of those could be, for example, not giving the person a fair opportunity at something. So it doesn't need to be exactly the same, but it needs to be linked to the same type of outcome.

Rolanda: Okay. And we always get this question when we deal with bullying and harassment: Two policies or one? I suppose maybe the way we could phrase that question, Caroline, is if, as an organisation, you wanted to have one policy that dealt with both bullying and harassment, a generic dignity at work policy, what would you need to do to ensure that it complied with both codes?

Caroline: So I think you need to decide what you're going to have in terms of when somebody comes and they have an issue. Are you going to let them go down one path if it's to do with harassment or sexual harassment, and a different path if it's to do with bullying? So it can still be one policy, but you're just dealing with the path of how they deal with it.

If it was me, I would encourage all complaints to go towards the contact person and I would have the contact person available for all options, because I do think the contact person in organisations . . 

You mentioned my career back in the day with contact persons 20 years ago, and they're brilliant for nipping issues in the bud, where somebody wants a quiet word with somebody, they don't necessarily want to go to HR, or they don't want to go to somebody more formal because they feel they're making a bigger issue of it and they want just the confidence of, "What do you think is best for me to do? What are my options?"

They need to be signposted and untangled a little bit from the emotion that they're feeling based on whatever might be going on for them.

So I would advocate the contact person would be available to all once they're trained. None of these roles are appropriate to give to somebody without giving them the skills that go with it, because otherwise people would do more damage than good. And in this scenario, it's all about trying to positively move the situation to a better place rather than the opposite.

Rolanda: Thank you, Caroline. And again, that just highlights the importance of appropriately trained mediators. It's a very powerful process, but it also opens up or requires people to open up a lot. So it can often get a bad reputation when it's not done appropriately or not done by appropriately trained.

Thank you, Caroline. There are loads of questions there. Very, very intense. Thank you very much.

As I said earlier, Caroline is one of the speakers at this year's Annual Review of Employment Law and she's going to be taking you through the differences between the bullying code and the harassment code, which I think will be a very useful session for people. So very much looking forward to that.

That's on 30 November and 1 December, and you'll hear a wee bit more about that from us.

Our webinars are turned into podcasts, so if you're a podcaster, then you'll be able to pick it up on Spotify, Amazon Music, or Apple Podcasts when you're running on the beach or whatever it is you do at the weekends to listen again.

And finally, our next webinar then is on 31 August with MCS Group, and we're going to be looking up the use of CVs versus the use of application forms. And based on MCS Group's experience, what do candidates prefer and what gets a better turnaround, bearing in mind the need to be consistent and fair as well with recruitment?

And our next webinar with HR Suite, then, is in September. We'll be in touch with you then about the details of that.

So, Caroline, thank you very, very much for your time.

Caroline: Thanks, Rolanda. Thank you all for joining today. Have a good week.

Rolanda: We'll see you again.

Caroline: Thanks, everybody.

Rolanda: Bye.

Sponsored by: