Caroline Reidy, Managing Director of the HR Suite, and Julie Holmes from Legal Island, delve into the latest HR trends and developments specifically tailored for the Irish landscape.

Are you ready to enhance your skills and tackle workplace investigations with confidence? In this webinar you'll gain insights into managing investigations in line with best practice. Discover how to streamline your approach and ensure fairness and compliance every step of the way. Learn first-hand from seasoned experts about the common pitfalls and how to avoid them. Don't risk costly mistakes – arm yourself with the knowledge and strategies to ensure your investigations are conducted seamlessly and effectively.

Recording:

Transcript:

Julie:   Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our webinar, "Practicalities of Managing Investigations". My name is Julie and I'm part of the Knowledge Team here at Legal-Island. I'm delighted that you've joined us this morning. And for today's guest we have Caroline Reidy, Managing Director of the HR Suite. So morning, Caroline. It's great to have you with us. Thank you.

Caroline:  Delighted as always, Julie. Thank you.

Julie:  So, first of all, I'm going to tell you a little bit about Caroline. Caroline is a past member of the Low Pay Commission and also an adjudicator in the Workplace Relations Commission. She is CIPD-accredited as well as being a trained mediator. And she's worked across various areas of HR for over 20 years prior to setting up The HR Suite.

In today's webinar, Caroline is going to look at some of the challenges faced by organisations in relation to workplace investigations. So Caroline is going to talk about some of the key milestones of workplace investigations, look at some potential pitfalls so that you don't fall into those, and also provide insight to ensure that your investigative processes are seamless.

I also want to take a moment to thank MCS Group who sponsor Legal-Island's webinars and podcasts. MCS helps people find careers that match their skill set perfectly. They also support employers to build high performing businesses by connecting them with the most talented candidates in the marketplace. So if you're interested in finding out a little bit more about MCS and how they can help you, then head to www.mcsgroup.jobs.

So what we'll do first of all is . . . Maria, if you could just go on to the next slide. I just want to say that we're obviously looking at investigations today, but if you're interested in a more in-depth look, we have a workplace event on 25 and 26 June. It's two half-days. It's online. We'll supply you with case studies. We'll look at interactive exercises so that you can talk to others about some of the challenges that you face. And you'll also get great resources like checklists and templates as well. So if you're interested in that, take a look at our website.

Now, to get us into investigations, we'll look at one of the topics that is most popular. And Maria, if you could bring up our first poll question for us, please. Thank you.

First of all, does your organisation currently have an up-to-date harassment or sexual harassment policy? And so if you're with us, I would be very grateful if you would just choose yes or no to that. I'll just give you a moment.

So fantastic news that 95% of you have one already in place. And then for the 5% that don't, that's fine. What we can do is you can take some learning from today and look at areas that you need to look at.

And the second one, then, is do you currently provide all staff with harassment and sexual harassment awareness training? And again, if you could vote for us, that would be great. Give Caroline and I a little bit of an idea of where you're coming from in relation to investigations.

So that one is a little bit more divided. We have yes at 52%, and no at 48%. And again, we'll take a look at that in a little bit more detail in relation to investigations and in relation to our just-launched workplace harassment eLearning package as well.

So if you'd like more information on Legal-Island's all-staff training course, which will look at what's appropriate behaviour and what is not, it would be great if you could indicate yes or no. And if you do want more information on that, remember that you can contact us directly about that. The email address is glen@legal-island.com, and he'd be very pleased to talk you through and give you a demo as well.

Now we know where we are. So, Caroline, it looks like harassment and sexual harassment, it probably won't surprise either of us that that's one of the main areas as well that people maybe don't supply training and where you can have issues arise.

But what I'm going to do for the moment is hand over to Caroline and leave you in her very capable hands to talk about this topic. There are no slides to go with the presentation. So, again, this will be a recording and it'll be available to you within a few days. We'll send that out.

If you have any questions, remember to pop those into the question box for us, and I'll get through as many as I can with Caroline after she finishes her talk.

All right. Thanks very much.

Caroline:  Brilliant. Thanks, Julie. Good morning, everybody. Brilliant to see so many of you join us live this morning. Always delighted to be chatting about one of my favourite topics, which sounds very sad really, investigations. I suppose having worked in the area of HR for so long, I see the difference in really good process and the difference that it makes.

So in the next half hour or so, I'm going to give you some of the top tips that we would encounter in The HR Suite from both doing investigations on behalf of clients, training investigators, and also supporting clients and advising them through the process.

So I suppose my starting point always is prevention is better than cure. I'm a really big fan of training managers to nip issues in the bud. A lot of the time, an investigation results from an issue that started out quite small, that if it was nipped in the bud at that time, then it would resolve the issue.

And I suppose training managers proactively to know how to quench fires and how to nip issues in the bud is an area I'm really passionate about, and something I would really recommend if you haven't done manager training in a while, especially if you have new managers and especially if they're managing maybe people in a hybrid or going through a lot of change.

So just think about the practical skills for managers and maybe that whole piece of helping them up-skill their toolbox of techniques in terms of addressing those.

The next piece is, for me, the importance of the informal route as much as possible. So, for me, investigations are the last resort. And even when clients contact us and they're looking for us to do an investigation, I'd often go back and say, "Have you exhausted the informal route and have you exhausted mediation?" For me, the formal route really should only be invoked if you have absolutely no other alternative.

Now, obviously, employees have the right to go down the formal route, and should they so wish, we obviously have to take them through that process. But sometimes I find that when somebody comes, for example, with a written statement of some form, whether that's an email to HR or it's an email to their manager or, in effect, a statement, we automatically presume that they want to make it formal. But I think our first protocol is to demystify that and to try and help them see if there is another alternative.

As well as up-skilling managers to be the first line of defence in nipping those issues in the bud, training contact persons is something that is really beneficial in the organisation.

I remember when I started my career many moons ago in Kerry Group, they had proactive contact persons in place way back then because they knew the advantage in having someone at your peer level that wasn't HR, that if someone was experiencing an issue, they could go and talk to somebody who was trained.

So, again, contact persons are really important as part of our bullying code of practice, but equally important to help nip issues in the bud.

If we move on, then, and we now presume that somebody wants to make a formal complaint and have it investigated, remember we need to always consider which policy is the matter being investigated in line with.

And if somebody is making a grievance, for example, or it's specifically to do with a specific policy, we need to be aware of the contents and details of that policy.

Remember, if it's in line with the new code of practice in relation to bullying, they need to first go through that preliminary screening stage to make sure that it meets the criteria, that it should go through to that formal process in line with the bullying and harassment policy.

Sometimes when we do the screening at preliminary stage, there may still be an issue of inappropriate behaviour or the employee still wants to get a matter investigated, but it doesn't meet the standard of repeated inappropriate behaviour for it to be bullying. Therefore, it might be investigated under a different policy.

So, again, just before you ever commence an investigation, make sure that you've all that pre-homework done. That's really important so you've got everybody clear in relation to the process.

Next, I suppose, is to explain to the complainant. And the complainant for me is the person who makes the complaint. Sometimes it can be the company because the employee has allegedly done something. It might be gross misconduct. It might be an issue with performance. It may be an issue with attendance. Equally, it may be an employee who invokes it because they have an issue with somebody else. For example, a bullying issue, etc.

So any role of what triggers it, we need to have knowledge of the policy and make sure that we follow the policy that's in place in your own handbook.

Most of you will have updated your handbook in the last 12 months to reflect, for example, the new bullying code of conduct, which is in a while now, and reflect any of the new legislation that came in. So just make sure that you have, and that it's being circulated to all staff so that you're starting from a good place.

 Next is to ensure that whoever is doing the investigation is a competent, trained person. And remember, even if you're outsourcing your investigation to somebody outside of your company, it needs to be somebody who, first of all, has the time available to do it. So you're still responsible for making sure the matter is handled professionally in a timely manner and in line with your own processes and procedures.

So, again, that investigator, in my mind, ideally should be trained. We do very short, half-hour e-learning courses where somebody goes and they learn how to ensure that they're following the top tips around investigations.

But to me, if you're getting someone who isn't a HR person who really knows the rules of natural justice and who really knows the HR elements of what they need to follow, you need to give them that crash course at minimum to try and help make sure that they're up-skilled enough that they're not going to do significant breaches of fair procedures.

So we've spoken about nipping issues in the bud as low down the food chain as you can for obvious reasons. And again, that's really important no matter what element you're at.

Now we're commencing the investigation. You've got a competent investigator that's going to be involved and you're going to make sure that you source the employee's contract, you source the relevant policy, and you source any other relevant information that's required.

And remember, your policies are key because they've got to be . . . For most scenarios, if somebody is going through an investigation, they've breached some form of policy, or there's an alleged allegation in relation to a breach. For example, a dignity and respect, or attendance or honesty, etc.

So you'll always go back to say, "What did it say in the policy?" And based on what it said in the policy, that's your starting point. So making sure your policies are up to date is crucial in relation to that.

Next, you're going to consider your rules of natural justice. There's, I suppose, the code of practice on grievance and disciplinary procedures, which is the S.I. 146/2000. It sets out the rules of natural justice and it covers disciplinary and grievance procedures. We would absorb all that information into your current grievance and disciplinary procedure.

 And remember, you've got the code of practice, which is the new one in relation to bullying. Again, that statutory instrument will be incorporated into your policies, as will the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the IR Act of 1990. So all of those will form part of your policies and procedures, and they need to be up to date.

I suppose the next thing you need to consider are the rules of natural justice. And for any investigation that we conduct, it's really important that the person knows the right to hear what the allegation is against them.

Obviously, in a protected disclosure, you may have a different route because it may be anonymised in some form depending on where it comes from. But in all other scenarios, the person should know the allegation made against them.

 They also have the right to fair and impartial hearing. And that fair and impartial hearing is in reality as well as perception.

 So, for example, in some scenarios, people would say, "Well, look, I don't want Johnny doing the investigation because even though he works in HR, he goes for coffee with Allan, and it's Allan I have the issue with". In that scenario, even though the HR person may be the epitome of professionalism, it's better to recuse yourself and get somebody else to manage that investigation.

So you don't want to start from a footing where the person feels that it's unreasonable to have that investigator because they're going to be biased, but obviously, equally, they can't object unnecessarily to somebody. But I would consider all of those objections should they arise and go back with a reasoned decision.

The next part of the rules of natural justice is the person has the right to representation. And again, who that representative may be is outlined in your policies and procedures.

Everybody has the right to state their case, and everybody has the right to appeal. So you're always going to consider those elements of it.

The representation piece in the code of practice that I mentioned, employee representative includes a colleague of the employee's choice, a registered trade union representative, but not any other body or person unconnected with the enterprise. But in some company policies, they may extend that to be somebody else.

And remember that the representative is there to support the person but not to speak on their behalf. It's really important that we stress the fact in all of the invitations and the minutes, etc., that everybody has the right to representation. And if the person refuses, we document that as well so that there's no ambiguity in that regard.

Next, the separation of process that I mentioned and that fair and impartial hearing means that we need to make sure that whoever's doing the investigation is not involved in the outcome and is not involved in the appeal.

So, from the very start, before you ever commence any process, you decide who's going to be the person that manages each of these specifically separate areas of the process so that there's no overlap and so that we can't be allegedly having muddied the waters.

The idea of that is you can't be the judge, the jury, and the executioner. So you can't have somebody, for example, a HR person, who is saying to the investigation manager, "Well, look, we think this is gross misconduct and the person is likely going to be dismissed". And then they repeat that to the outcome manager, and they repeat that to the appeal manager, therefore undermining the full process.

Always remember in these scenarios that if this goes all the way to the Workplace Relations Commission or to the Labour Court, people are giving evidence under oath or affirmation to say were they independent in their managing of each stage of this process that they were responsible for. So it's really important that we start out from that place.

I also mentioned for me the importance of people understanding their role. I see a lot of times where somebody says to me, "Well, look, we've got this person, they're on our board". They might be a retired solicitor, retired accountant, or somebody who's of good standing, but they're not somebody who's trained in investigations.

And for me, that's crucial because I've seen very serious breaches of fair procedure happen where somebody just doesn't understand the role of the investigation manager, and they actually muddy the waters because they do both the investigation and the outcome and they've given the sanction, etc.

So, again, I mentioned obviously we do that short e-learning course for people who are doing an investigation that would be just to up-skill them on the basics of investigation.

Also, your terms of reference are crucial. So you've to identify in your terms of reference what is the scope of what is being investigated. So you're clearly outlining, "What exactly am I investigating?"

For example, "An incident occurred on this date, this is the incident, a follow-on incident occurred on this date, this is the incident, and a third incident occurred on that date. And that's basically what I'm investigating, to see if these incidents occurred and if they are a breach, for example, of the dignity and respect policy". So it's very clear in your terms of reference what exactly is being investigated.

It also outlines the investigator's role and what the employee can expect. And these terms of reference means that there's no ambiguity in terms of overstepping the mark or any ambiguity in terms of exactly what that investigator will do.

It also outlines the obligation of confidentiality for all the parties. So, for example, if the employee is raising an issue about a fellow colleague, they understand that they must keep the matter confidential.

It looks at any data or subject access request that's required. And it also outlines the support available for both or all of the parties involved in the matter.

Sometimes we give the support to the person who is the complainant, whoever is making the complaint, but we don't give it to maybe the subject of the complaint as readily. So, again, remind them of the employee assistance programme, remind them that they can go to HR to get any queries they have answered, and remind them in terms of the role of their manager in the process as well.

And again, most of the time we would always say that any manager shouldn't be involved because they've got to work with the parties after the incident. And oftentimes they need to be involved as a witness. So involving them in another area just muddies the water.

So your terms of reference is a really robust document and it's one that sets out the stall really well. It's one that, I suppose, you always should agree with the investigator before you give the terms of reference to the parties to make sure that the investigator is clear in relation to their responsibilities as well.

The other important point to note is that everything is an allegation until proven to be different. And the allegation can come from lots of different sources. It may come from the company in relation to alleged breach of policy, inappropriate behaviour, etc., or it can come from a fellow colleague. But it's important that we always refer to it as an allegation.

And again, that's why I'm always a fan of training managers. Make sure that the manager doesn't overstep the mark, because oftentimes the employee can come to the manager and say after happening, "Listen, this incident occurred with a manager or a fellow colleague", and the manager who isn't trained can start overstepping the mark to say, "That's terrible. I can't believe that happened". In other words, they're taking it as fact rather than being very clear that this is an allegation and everybody's innocent until proven different.

The other really important element of this in terms of investigations, where I see flaws happening, is that it can really prolong for an extended period of time. And sometimes the employees may be suspended, which obviously is a last resort and should only happen in exceptional circumstances.

We've lots of case law that backs that up, that it really should only happen if we feel that somebody is at a risk from a health and safety perspective or evidence could be tampered with or other exceptional circumstances.

But if you have somebody who is at work or at home, depending on the scenario, and this goes on for a number of months, you can imagine the increased stress for them and for their families, etc. So for all the parties involved, I would always say managing the timelines is crucial.

So whatever investigator you're getting to be involved, they need to be available and they need to be proactively managing the process. And there shouldn't be any undue delays in terms of meeting the parties and getting the process kicked off.

I mentioned the importance of recusing yourself if you felt that there was an issue in terms of reasonably expecting you to be the right person to do the investigation. And I suppose reasonableness is what kicks into gear.

The High Court Judge Baker in one of the scenarios, it was to do with NUIG and he basically made the point that it should be somebody who is independent and ultimately the test to be applied is, "Is this a reasonable person in terms of reasonable assertion that they won't get a fair trial from an impartial person?" And if that bar can't be met, the person should recuse themselves and an alternative person should be got.

I suppose when I'm doing investigations, I always prepare a list of questions in advance. Many of you will know I've written a book called "The Art of Asking the Right Questions: A People Manager's Toolkit", and I've also done a TED Talk, which you're all welcome to have a look at if you haven't seen it, which is on my LinkedIn, or also just to have a Google of it and you'll find it.

But ultimately, I'm a big fan of preparing your questions in advance of any investigation for both the complainant, the subject of the complaint, and any other witnesses that are relevant.

And I suppose my approach then would be that I would . . . Once I've prepared my list of questions, which would be detailed questions in relation to the evidence, in relation to the allegations, etc., I usually start with an inquisitorial style, which means that I would ask broad questions to start with and then I would narrow that down and fill in the gaps as I go. And I would always review at the end to make sure that the person is clear and I'm clear in terms of the understanding.

Obviously, we're going to be taking minutes throughout the investigation also. I would take a lot of the minutes myself, unless it's something really complex that I might organise to have a note-taker present. It's getting a lot more common now in terms of recording of minutes on an audio system also. Again, that's back to what your policy is.

If the other party requests to record, the only caveat I would put in is that they would share the recording afterwards as well. But again, your policy will dictate that. The terms of reference will dictate that. As investigators, we always have to follow the company policy and not set a new precedent.

I suppose, also, it's really important that we gather and consider as much of the factual evidence as possible. And that will be everything from CCTV to witnesses to documentary evidence, etc.

And again, make sure that the appropriate policies are in place in advance. So, for example, that CCTV can be used for a potential investigation. In many scenarios, the correct CCTV policy is not in place and it can't be used.

And we've seen a lot of case law examples from the Data Protection Commission in relation to CCTV can't be used to monitor staff in situations to replace actual management.

So, again, making sure you've got your CCTV policy that confirms that it can be used in relation to alleged breaches of policy, honesty, etc., is really important.

I mentioned suspension. And just to remind you, suspension must always be paid. Again, it's really important that you give the employee who may be suspended confirmation that even though they're suspended, that doesn't presume any wrongdoing. It's being done for a specific purpose, and you explain what that is.

Obviously, your paper trail throughout is crucial. So you're going to give an invitation to the employee to explain what is being alleged, the relevant policy. You're going to outline the details in relation to minutes, in relation to the right to representation, an overview of the process, and you're also going to give them that terms of reference that has been agreed. Again, you're going to also facilitate any questions that they may have to ensure that you've done a comprehensive job in relation to the process.

I suppose during the process, as I said, managing the timelines of it is crucial. And your job, then, at the output of the investigation is to produce a really good investigation report that anyone who reads it can clearly see what is the allegation, what is the evidence that has been adduced during the investigation process, and also the finding of your investigation.

Once the investigation is done, you're going to give that copy of the report to the parties as outlined in the terms of reference. In some cases, that's given back to the company and they give it to the employee and the other parties. And in more incidents, the investigator gives it to them.

I suppose then, ultimately, the job is done of the investigation manager, because now the outcome manager kicks into gear, and the appeal manager should that be the case.

For me, the paper trail is essential, and even in scenarios where . . . For example, you may not decide to interview all witnesses because they may say, "Look, there are 10 people who saw this incident happen", and you decide, "Well, I'm not going to meet all 10 people, but I'm going to take a straw poll and maybe talk to 3". But you need to explain that in the investigation report to say, "There were 10 witnesses. I chose randomly three from that".

Now, obviously, you can meet all 10 as well. But my point is if you make a decision like that example I've given you, you need to explain in your report what is involved. So that's a really important caveat in the process.

So my top tips to conclude, and then we'll do our questions and answers, is try and avoid investigations as much as possible. Train your managers proactively in terms of nipping issues in the bud. And if you haven't done manager training in a while, we'd love to chat to you about the practicalities of giving them top tips and assisting them in that regard.

I suppose next is if an investigation is inevitable, make sure that you know the correct policy that the investigation is relevant to. Remember, in our new bullying code of practice, we must go through the preliminary screening stage first. And in any or all of the other policies, you need to be clear in relation to what exactly is alleged and what the implications of that are.

If the investigator is appointed, we need to make sure that they're objective and that they're fair and that they're not somebody who could be perceived to have a bias.

And for me, we need to make sure that that investigator has at least that minimum training. Again, I mentioned obviously we train investigators and we also have that crash course e-learning course, which is only short, but a really good one for somebody who might be involved in an investigation that isn't overly complex to assist them in that regard. Making sure your contract, your policies, etc., are up to date in that regard is key as well.

Once you commence the investigation, top tips are to make sure you do a really good terms of reference, which clearly outline everybody's role. It reminds people of the right representation, confidentiality, who's going to get the report, what the timeline is likely to be like, etc. So, again, it sets out your stall very, very well.

Remember, suspend only in exceptional circumstances and have a really good reason as to why you've gone down that route.

Make sure everything is labelled an allegation. And again, the investigator throughout refers to everything as an allegation.

Your outcome of your investigation is that investigation report. And make sure that it is thorough, it is detailed, and somebody who picks it up can see the chronological order that you've conducted the investigation, all the evidence that you've adduced during the process, and what your findings are. That document should be an easy read-alone document to make sure that whoever gets it next can make a judgement in relation to it, whether that be the outcome manager or the parties that are involved.

So paper trail is key as always, and process is key to anything we do in HR, including all of what we've covered today.

So that's a whistle stop tour of the practicalities of investigations and the top tips. For me, as I mentioned, a lot of the pitfalls happen around process, happen around timeliness, or happen because somebody hasn't been trained.

So, Julie, hopefully that was a good summary and good top tips for everybody who joined us this morning. I'm delighted to answer any questions, Julie, people may have if that suits.

Julie:   Thank you, Caroline. Yes, we've got quite a few questions in. It was a great comprehensive overview, so thank you very much for that.

The first question which a couple of different people have submitted, is really about what you do if you have somebody who approaches managers say, "We have a complaint about this, but I don't want to be involved", or, "I don't want to be the one to make the formal complaint".

Caroline:  I suppose ultimately all we can do then is refresh our training objectively. So, for example, they may say, "Look, we noticed that . . ." Maybe there might be inappropriate comments being made, for example. So you might do a refresher with everybody on dignity and respect, for example. That's as much as you can do, because you can't put an allegation to somebody that's anonymous because they won't have the fair opportunity to respond.

I suppose, again, that comes back to managers being really good at nipping issues in the bud and encouraging people that if they do have an issue, how it will be handled so professionally and it'll be addressed so proactively. I think that's giving people the confidence.

That's why I really like the idea, which is recommended in the bullying code of practice as well, by the way, of having trained contact persons available. And again, it's something we provide in terms of training.

Again, contact persons and managers, Julie. Anything that's going to nip the issue in the bud and encourage people to resolve it informally. But doing nothing is just kicking the can down the road, isn't it?

Julie:   It is. I think as you said, that's great advice about trying to nip things in the bud as well and making sure that people know what behaviour isn't acceptable and also about managers having the skills to do that as well.

We've got a couple of questions about things like the terms of reference to be given to almost the complainant or to be given to the subject. How do you handle when people want to immediately know, "Who was it that complained about me? What are they saying?" But it's more that emotional response rather than when you're actually in the formal meeting with people.

Caroline:  I think by doing the terms of reference and agreeing those upfront and sending the invite with the terms of reference and the allegation, you need to talk the person through what they're receiving. You can't just send a random email to somebody outlining all of this without there being human contact.

And for me, I suppose at that stage, you're basically stressing, "Look, Caroline, unfortunately a complaint has been made. It is an allegation. We have an obligation to investigate it. However, please be assured that from our position, everybody's innocent until proven different. So now I'm going to take you through the terms of reference".

You take them through the terms of reference, you take them through the alleged allegation, but again, our wording and our professionalism around that need to be very much a case of reminding them that we're providing whatever support we can for that person, that we do deem them to be innocent.

That's a tricky one sometimes where the manager often says to me, "Well, look, I've tried to separate them as much as I can in an effort to . . . " And you have to be very careful. By doing things like that, it could be perceived that you believe an allegation, for example.

So that's what I'm saying about the perception of everybody's innocent is as much in reality the case that you're not taking steps or measures that might disadvantage the company later, because actually the actions of the company or that manager on behalf of the company is showing something different to what we'd like to be the case.

Julie:  You had actually mentioned about the role of HR in this and about if someone accuses us of bias or somebody says, "I'm not comfortable with that person". That's fine, and we can remove ourselves.

What happens if you do have your terms of reference all done, you've got the person that you think is going to be best as investigator, and then the person objects to that and says, "No, I have concerns about that"? What way would you actually look at that, or what's your rationale, or what records should you keep in relation to that?

Caroline:  Yeah, it happens quite a bit, to be fair, where somebody will say exactly as you've said. I think the trick, really, in those scenarios is that you're going to consider what they've said.

So, for example, if they say, "Well, look, Julie and Caroline are very good friends and it's not appropriate that Caroline's investigating the complaint as a result", I think that's reasonable, because even though I might be the most professional HR person around, it's the perception and the reality.

Whereas if you give them three investigators of a panel to say, "It's going to be one of these three. Can you choose one?" and they say, "I don't like the look of any of them because you picked them as the company", then to me that's not reasonable. So therefore I would say, "Well, look, in the absence of you choosing one, we're going to choose one ourselves and we're going to proceed with the investigation".

Ultimately, you need to, from a timeliness point of view, remember there's generally more than one party involved. So one party can't stall the process because it's stressful for the other person the longer it goes on.

Julie:  And then the next question was really what you mentioned about the size of the organisation as well. So we have some people saying that they're in quite a small company, don't have much of a management structure. So almost if you have to use the same managers for certain parts, what parts would those be? Or where would you need to ensure that you definitely had different people involved?

Caroline:  I think the most difficult part of any investigation is the investigation. The outcome and the appeal are easier. So the most competent person in the organisation, I would say, should do the investigation. Oftentimes, though, you may decide that, "Actually, we don't have the skill set", or because it's such a serious allegation and we want it to be done very thoroughly, you might outsource that to somebody like us. That's a decision that can be made on a case-by-case basis.

If it's not something that's going to lead to, for example, gross misconduct or something really serious, you may decide that you're going to do it in-house. But the investigation is by far the trickiest part.

Julie:   And somebody has just asked about being accompanied at the actual investigation stage.

Caroline:  Yeah, I think it's really important that we give the right to representation. Again, I've mentioned the code of practice in my summary today, but each company has their own representation policy, and whatever yours is, you must follow.

Oftentimes, somebody would say, "Well, look, they want to bring this other person and it's not in our policy. Are you happy?" And I'd say, "Yeah, I'm happy. However, what will that do for your custom and practice?"

So it isn't just, "Is the investigator happy, for example, to have someone different?" You potentially are going to be changing your own custom and practice. So that's why it's an important one to think through as you deviate from any policy or any procedure, that you're happy and that you're okay with changing that policy as a result.

Julie:   I'm following on from that where you've said about your policies, making sure that you have everything reflected in those, even down to things like recording the meetings. What about where the meetings take place? We've had somebody ask about somebody who constantly delays the meetings. So perhaps they're saying that the meetings all need to be in person or perhaps that involves a lot of distance for an investigator to travel, whether they can be remote.

Caroline:  Again, I have no issue with them being remote. I think they're equally effective, and they absolutely work. I think timeliness is a really important factor that the company manage, and it doesn't matter if you have it outsourced to somebody else or not. You're agreeing upfront that everybody makes themselves available to do the investigation in a timely manner. So, to me, if it delays it any more than a week, that's too much of a delay.

I think you need to be proactive and you need to consider as well . . . If it's, for example, a very tricky sexual harassment investigation, the person might actually feel they do need to do it in person. You have to take that into account.

So, like most things in HR, it's a case-by-case basis, but you need to make sure you're managing the timeliness and the sensitivity for the person as well, and the empathy piece.

Julie:   I think that goes back to what you really started the whole presentation with, saying about natural justice and being fair and reasonable towards staff and making sure that everybody involved really has access to those resources as well.

So thanks very much, Caroline. There are loads more questions there, but unfortunately I think that we're getting quite close in time. Thank you, everybody.

Caroline:  Thanks, everyone.

Julie:  Obviously, a very popular topic, and also Caroline's given a fantastic overview, so I hope you got lots from that.

As Caroline mentioned, they do help with things like external investigations. So if you do need help with that, certainly look at the contact details for The HR Suite there.

And then, Maria, if you could just go on to the next slide for me please. So we don't have slides for you today, but you can also look at the recording, which Maria will be sending out to you. Also, we have a podcast as well, so you can search for that.

Thank you very much to Caroline for a fantastic session, and Maria, who handles all the tech in the background and answers your queries. So, again, very grateful for her assistance. And also MCS Group.

We look very forward to you joining us next time for our next webinar. And of course, Caroline will be a guest with us again soon.

Caroline:  A pleasure.

Julie:  Thank you. Have a good day.

Caroline:  Thanks, everybody.

Julie:   All right. Thanks, Caroline. 

Sponsored by: