 |
|
 |
| ||
 |
|
 |
Excerpt from this article first published in Human Resources Magazine, Issue 151 - 29 April 2008
The AIRC ordered Melbourne’s St Vincent Hospital to reinstate an employee and ordered compensation for lost earnings after it found that a pathology courier employee’s (Ms Nicolson) dismissal was unfair.
In this case the Hospital’s HR practitioner conducted an internal investigation in which it wrongly accused Ms Nicolson of assaulting a fellow employee during a dispute over rosters. As a result of the internal investigation Ms Nicolson’s employment was terminated.
The AIRC found that the investigation was faulty and had been conducted in a “completely unprofessional” way by the Hospital’s HR practitioner. Part of the reasons for the decision was that the HR practitioner had refused to make copies of all records available to Ms Nicolson, including copies of all of the allegations made against Ms Nicolson. The AIRC also found that a senior employee was biased in his evidence against Ms Nicolson in the investigation. The AIRC specifically stated that Ms Nicolson was entitled to full disclosure of everything that was going to be used against her. The AIRC was particularly critical of the Hospital’s HR Practitioner, finding that her actions smacked of a poor concept of Ms Nicolson’s rights, particularly in light of the HR Practitioner’s claimed experience.
The AIRC concluded that there was no basis for the finding in the investigation that Ms Nicolson had assaulted a fellow employee during a rostering dispute. In fact, the AIRC found that Ms Nicolson was the victim of assault by a fellow employee rather than the perpetrator of the assault.
The AIRC also found that the HR practitioner’s conduct was in breach of the Hospital’s own Code of Conduct and the values expressed by the Hospital.
The AIRC ordered that Ms Nicolson was to be either reinstated to her former position or to a different but equivalent position. The AIRC provided the option of reinstating her to an equivalent position because of the poor attitude of the more senior employees in the area Ms Nicolson had worked in the Hospital. The AIRC also ordered that the Hospital pay to her compensation for lost earnings.
Employers must ensure that investigations conducted by the Company are procedurally fair and that any findings made from the investigation can be supported by the evidence provided in the investigation. Usually, this does not require providing an employee with all material relating to allegations against the employee, however, the employee should be informed of all details of the allegations against her.
