Showing posts with label investigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label investigation. Show all posts

02 December 2016

Queensland Industrial Court Vice-President Dianne Linnane faces Workplace Bullying claim

Queensland Industrial Court vice-president Dianne Linnane.
A secret investigation has been ordered into allegations of workplace bullying against one of Queensland’s most senior industrial umpires.
The high-ranking official within a Queensland government agency pockets $400,000 a year.
Justice Department deputy ­director-general Simon Blackwood commissioned the almost unprecedented independent probe into Queensland Industrial Court vice-president Dianne Linnane after she allegedly bullied a fellow judicial officer.

Melbourne lawyer Barry Sherriff has been quietly conducting interviews for months,
after being asked to investigate whether Ms Linnane — who is paid an annual base salary of nearly $400,000 and has tenure until she is 70 — breached the state’s Work Health and Safety Act.

She is alleged to have bullied Industrial Court commissioner Minna Knight.

The judicial officers serve on the Industrial Court and Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which are responsible for resolving workplace disputes. The Australian understands Ms ­Linnane denies the allegations being investigated by Mr Sherriff and is considering legal options.

The Australian
is not suggesting Ms Linnane engaged in the conduct, only that she is being investigated for it. She did not respond to questions from this paper put through the court’s registry yesterday.

The case is highly sensitive for the state, given judges’ right to ­immunity from prosecution and the separation of powers.

It is doubtful any action could be taken against Ms Linnane by the government even if the ­allegations were proven.

Under Queensland law, the only way to remove a judicial ­officer from their office is for the governor to order the removal after a vote of parliament for “mental or physical incapacity” or “misbehaviour”.

It is unlikely that bullying allegations against Ms Linnane would justify such an action, and Mr Sherriff is not conducting a general investigation into her fitness as a judicial officer. Under the Industrial Relations Act, judicial officers such as Ms Linnane are afforded ­immunities similar to Supreme Court judges for performing their duties.

The Linnane stoush spilt into the courtroom recently when ­Industrial Court president and Supreme Court judge Glenn Martin was forced to order Ms Lin­nane be removed from hearing an unrelated case in which Dr Blackwood would be a key witness.

The case involved public servant Alain D’Hotman De Villiers, who was sacked by Dr Blackwood from the Office of Industrial Relations. Lawyers for both the ­bureaucrat and the government asked Ms Linnane to recuse herself after she agreed to sign a ­notice ordering the production of documents.

The notice required the production of documents “showing Simon Blackwood’s involvement in responding to any complaint or complaints” about or involving Ms Linnane in the past five years, and all documents relating to the appointment of an investigator of any such complaints.

In a two-minute hearing in late October, Ms Linnane refused to hear arguments that she should recuse herself for apprehended bias. The government and Mr De Villiers’s lawyers appealed, and Justice Martin ruled on November 3 that she be recused because “the necessary ground for establishing apprehended bias has clearly been made out”.

When contacted by The Australian to give Ms Linnane a right of reply, her solicitor, Glen ­Cranny, said “it would not be ­appropriate to comment further at this point in time”.
Commissioner Knight and Dr Blackwood declined to comment.

Industrial Relations Minister Grace Grace said she was “aware” of the independent investigation but it was “the sole responsibility of the department”.

Aged in her mid-60s, Ms Linnane was appointed to both the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and the Industrial Court by the Beattie Labor government in 1999 after a career as a barrister.

In 2010, Right to Information documents obtained by The Courier-Mail revealed a long-running stoush between Ms Linnane and then-commissioner Don Brown, in which she ordered him not to enter the commission’s tearoom, library and his own chambers.

Source
: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/industrial-umpire-dianne-linnane-faces-workplace-bullying-claim/news-story/a81914f2f31ea23c96e6f58b88b13fcb 


Also: http://finance.nine.com.au/2016/11/15/10/04/queensland-official-investigated-over-workplace-bullying-claim

08 December 2010

Australian Workplace - Canberra Hospital's Maternity Unit Bullying Cover Up?

Gallagher 'covering-up' maternity unit report

Pressure is mounting on the ACT Government to release the findings of an inquiry into bullying allegations at Canberra Hospital's maternity unit.

Earlier this year the ACT Government ordered two external reviews into the hospital's obstetrics and gynaecology units after allegations of workplace bullying were made.

The Government appointed a workplace relations expert to investigate the bullying claims.

The investigation was conducted under the Public Interest Disclosure Act - a law designed to protect whistleblowers by keeping information confidential.

Health Minister Katy Gallagher says confidentiality clauses in the legislation prevent her from reading the report or it being publicly released.

But the Opposition is pushing for the report's recommendations to be released in the Legislative Assembly.

Opposition health spokesman Jeremy Hanson says the information could be released without personal details being made public.

"I want to see the recommendations, I want to see the findings and unless we see that then we're going to have to consider further action," he said.

Mr Hanson says the Government is deliberately trying to cover-up the report.

"The minister has set this process up under the Public Interest Disclosure Act to avoid scrutiny," he said.

"We were very concerned about this when it occurred in February. We said then that what we needed was an open inquiry because in the end of the day the minister's going to make sure that this never sees the light of day, and it has come to fruition."

The ACT Greens says releasing details of the inquiry could jeopardise investigations in the future.

"What Mr Hanson is suggesting could potentially expose people, could threaten their confidentiality - either he doesn't understand the process or he's using it for his own political ends," said Greens MLA Amanda Bresnan.

Ms Bresnan says releasing any detail could lead to a loss of faith in the public interest disclosure process.

"With public interest disclosure, people have come forward on the understanding everything would be protected and while we might say, 'it's only a few details', Canberra's a small place, this is a small unit, and any information could actually potentially identify the people involved," she said.

"It would really seriously undermine the whole public interest disclosure process."

Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says the inquiry will be followed up.

"I can give an absolute assurance that any of the findings will be taken absolutely seriously and if there were recommendations or implications they will be taken seriously and there's no reason for people not to believe that," he said.

The Health Services Union says there is a broader problem with the way bullying claims are handled.

"It just seems to be endemic and also the process is so lacking in transparency and information," said union spokeswoman Bev Turello.

ACT Health says it has written to the people involved in the inquiry.

But the Ms Turello says in the union's experience, staff are often kept in the dark.

"They need to know if action has been taken, if appropriate action has been taken, if they're going to be safe in their workplaces."

Royal College of Obstetricians ACT chair Dr Andrew Foote says it has been nearly 12 months since the bullying allegations were made public and nothing has changed.

"I've spoken to a number of people at the hospital and there is a real dread, and fear and sense of helplessness," he said.

"It sends the message, what's the point in complaining about bullying because nothing will get done."

source

02 August 2010

Toxic Personalities: Discovering their systems of power & shaping workplaces of respectful engagement

Counterproductive work behaviours can debilitate an organisation's productivity and seriously harm individual incentive, a new study reveals.

"The day this person left our company is considered an annual holiday!" This quote from our national research study on toxic personalities echoes the sentiment these individuals have on an organization's culture and bottom line.

We conducted a research study in the United States that included in-depth interviews and an 82-item online survey of over 400 leaders. These leaders representing males and females, as well as profit and non-profit organizations, indicated that a whopping 94% have worked or currently work with a toxic person! Efforts to work with these individuals have generated a long list of anecdotal suggestions, but few practical and effective solutions. Yet, statistics below reflect the degree in which counterproductive work behaviors can debilitate an organization's productivity and seriously harm individual incentive, as indicated by these statistics:

  • 25% of "victims" of incivility ceased voluntary efforts.
  • 50% contemplated leaving their jobs; 12% did!
  • 20% reduced their rate of work.
  • 10% deliberately cut back the amount of time they spent at work.

With the costs of recruiting ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 times the person's annual salary, the financial erosion from the effects of toxic behaviors is significant. When you factor in the human toll, the costs become exponential, as this quote from our study illustrates: "This toxic person is in the most Sr. HR leadership role in the organization. He has experienced 80% turnover of his direct reporting team and staff." The toxic individual is a profit saboteur from two contexts-financial and human.

Here are some of the commonly held myths regarding toxic persons in the workplace that our findings refuted. That is, these common assumptions are false:

  1. Don't mess with their success.
  2. Give them feedback.
  3. Most people won't put up with toxic behaviors.
  4. HR and other consultants can solve the problem.
  5. Fire them to resolve the issue.
  6. Toxic persons know exactly what they're doing.
  7. Toxic behavior is a solo act.
  8. When hiring, seek a little extra competence over a little more likeability.
  9. Leaders see the systemic effects.

So what did we find out about toxic behaviors in organizations? Toxicity included behaviors that did not necessarily meet the threshold of bullying or harassment, but rather were more subtle and habitual. Based on our research, we discovered three types of toxic behaviors:

  • Shaming
  • Passive hostility
  • Team sabotage

These types of behaviors included, for example, pot shots, sarcasm, passive aggression, team surveillance, and territoriality. Sound familiar?

We also asked leaders if their reactions and strategies in coping with these people were effective. Surprisingly, they reported that the typical reactions of reconfiguring the team, simply avoiding the person, or giving performance feedback, just did not work. In fact, the often touted strategy of one-on-one feedback is largely ineffectivebecause toxic individuals are unaware of the negative effect they have on others or simply feel justified in treating others badly. As many of our respondents claimed, "the toxic person is mostly clueless they are toxic".

Another revealing finding was that many toxic persons have a protector in the organization or on the team. In some cases the protector was a person who deliberately covered for the toxic person because they received something in return (such as high sales numbers or special consideration for advancement).

However, some protectors were actually trying to protect their teams from the debilitating effects of the person's behavior and were inadvertently enabling the toxicity to continue unabated. In our workshops, there are many participants who report the "aha" of discovering that they have become part of the problem by protecting! We found three types of protectors:

  • The relationship protector
  • The power protector
  • The productivity protector

The most critical discovery in our study was the systemic effect of toxicity in the organization. A toxic person could relatively quickly infect leader and staff confidence, team cohesion, organizational culture, and individual well-being.

Our findings led to the development of effective strategies to prevent the spread of toxicity through a systems approach. In our Toxic Organizational Change System (TOCS) © a number of interventions that can be effectively used in concert with one another are discussed.

The interventions are delivered at organizational, team, and individual levels of the organizations and a few of these are listed below.

1. Organizational strategies:

  • Large-scale design of concrete values of respectful engagement
  • Critical integration of values into existing performance systems
  • Design of formal "skip-level" evaluations

2. Team strategies:

  • Proactive interventions
    • Behavioral team selection via the "BIG-FIVE" personality factors
    • Translation of organizational values to team norms
  • Reactive interventions
    • 360-degree team assessment systems from within and outside the team
    • Innovative use of exit interviews
    • Identification of "toxic protectors" who enable toxicity
      • Special relationship protectors
      • Power protectors
      • Productivity protectors

3. Individual strategies:

  • Targeted feedback
  • Systems coaching
  • Use of formal authority
  • Fair-process terminations

As a result of our research, we have been working to help leaders understand the systems components that should be engaged proactively to reduce the probability of a toxic person entering the organization and to create cultures of respectful engagement.

We are very interested in your experiences with toxic persons and intervention strategies that have worked-both in terms of working directly with toxic personalities as well as creating cultures of respectful engagement. Please share your insights by leaving a comment on this blog.

source

Also see information here


Back to the Future .. from 2001

Coping with 'toxic co-workers'


A new book offers survival tips

OK, so who among us hasn't secretly suspected the boss is a psycho?

Or thought the man/woman in the cubicle to the right is a borderline personality ready to love you/hate you/boil your pet bunny — all before the drama queen/king pushing the doughnut cart rolls around? Or are you worried that your co-workers gather around the water cooler every day to secretly plot against you? Paranoid, eh?

A happy and supportive workplace can make the hours from 9 to 5 seem positively golden.

But toss a personality-challenged co-worker into the mix, and those work hours can turn into torture. And that's not taking into account the potential for collateral damage, ranging from ulcers to job loss, litigation and outright violence.

PERSONALITY DISORDERS
• Want to find out if you have a personality disorder (or make an educated guess about a co-worker)? Check outwww.med.nyu.edu/Psych/screens/pds.htmlfor diagnostic screenings on the 10 types of personality disorders.
Cast of toxic characters
There are a lot of sick people out there, say New Jersey psychologists Neil J. Lavender and Alan A. Cavaiola.

Many of them have jobs.

Maybe they work with you.

“We believe, as do a lot of other people, that they're kind of like a hidden cancer in businesses,” says Dr. Lavender, a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at Ocean County College in Toms River, N.J.

He and Dr. Cavaiola have written a new book, Toxic Coworkers: How to Deal with Dysfunctional People on the Job(New Harbinger Publications; $13.95), that provides a mini Psych 101 course for coping with the not-so-well-adjusted folk who inhabit the workplace right along with the rest of us. In telephone interviews, they elaborated on their published primer.


Unhealthy behaviors

Every workplace has its share of odd ducks and office cranks. But Drs. Cavaiola and Lavender say people with psychological issues like narcissism and borderline personality disorder can make the workplace downright venomous.

“Toxic” personalities are a fact of life in the workplace, says Dr. Lavender, and they turn up at all levels of the corporate hierarchy, from the new intern who hacks into corporate e-mail accounts to the CEO who just walked away with a golden parachute and all the cash in the employee pension fund.

“Over the years, we've seen them at work and read about them in the newspaper just bringing corporations down, due to their own personality flaws,” he says.

Personality disorders refer to a broad set of unhealthy and destructive behaviors — lying, avoiding social contact, sabotaging others — people use to cope with everyday stress. Because personality disorders are based in behavior, they're very hard to treat: First the person has to admit there's a problem, then he has to change.

Most personality-disordered individuals “view their symptoms as their strengths,” says Dr. Cavaiola, so change doesn't come easily. He is a clinical psychologist and assistant professor at Monmouth University in Long Branch, N.J.

But if you're working with the middle manager who makes everyone miss deadlines so she can double-check everything from the arithmetic in the annual report to the way the document is collated, you know there's a fine line between taking pride in your work and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

People with personality disorders have problems dealing with everyday life — sometimes they can't hold jobs or maintain relationships — and their problems make problems for the rest of us, Dr. Lavender says. In the workplace, personality disorders can make the most well-oiled corporate machinery grind to a halt when employers realize they literally can't work with a personality-disordered co-worker or supervisor.

Dr. Cavaiola talks about a woman with paranoid personality disorder who sued her employer because her co-workers weren't telling her dirty jokes. She argued they were deliberately leaving her out of the grapevine.

And Dr. Lavender talks about a work site where he was called in to counsel employees. “It was a car dealership, and all the salesmen were anti-social personalities,” he says. “They had a lot of their older customers convinced that a rebate was something they had to pay extra to get the car.”


Spotting a disorder

So how do you spot a personality disorder?

It's easy, Dr. Lavender says. Just listen for the shouting, and watch your own responses.

“If you see two staff members fighting consistently, that's a clue,” he says. “Usually there's a guy or a gal who seems to be in the middle of every brouhaha. They're always involved. They're the ones firing off the memos. They're the ones who are demanding time to meet with supervisors. And they all have hidden agendas that are relevant to their personality disorders.”

Your response to a problem co-worker can also be a sign of trouble, Dr. Lavender says.

“The first key is that you kind of become obsessed with this person. You start thinking about them night and day. They're in your dreams,” he says.

“I think the second thing is — and this is the almost magical quality these people have — they bring out feelings in you that you've never had before and that are very uncharacteristic of you.

“There are certain people that bring out the desire in people around them to beat these people up. So here you are, a peaceful kind of person and you are very charitable and loving and giving and you're talking to this person and getting nowhere and all of a sudden you want to hit them. You begin to feel horrible about yourself. How can I have these thoughts?”


Keys to coping

Personality-disordered people aren't going to change, Dr. Cavaiola says, so the key to to coping is to change the way you respond to them.

If you're dealing with a borderline or histrionic personality, don't respond to their dramatic stories or pleas for help, he says. If you're dealing with a psychopath, stay out of their way or risk becoming a target.

And, looking on the bright side, personality disorders are well-suited to certain jobs, provided there's little stress involved.

People with schizoidal tendencies — a disinterest in interacting with others and the inability to negotiate daily “give and take” activities — work very well with machinery and technology.

Perfectionism, provided it's not carried to extremes, can be a good trait in accountants or engineers.

And some psychopaths, with their “win at all costs” attitude and abundant charm, might make great salespeople, as long as they're not prone to violence, say both Drs. Lavender and Cavaiola.

But jokes about used-car salesmen aside, there's a potential for tragedy where “toxic” co-workers dwell. Drs. Cavaiola and Lavender point to workplace shootings and other incidents of violence, as well as the scandals that arise when executives are caught stealing from the company.

Human resources directors know there are problem employees out among the cubicle-dwellers and in the corner offices, but too few employers either screen for or try to remedy the headaches that personality-disordered workers can cause, Dr. Lavender and Cavaiola say.

Background checks can provide good clues, they say, although smaller employers might not be able to afford them. Employers should also ask potential employees lots of “how” questions about interactions with co-workers and customers: How would you handle this situation?

And letting the candidate's peers meet with him or her during interviews also can provide some idea of how he'll fit in with the group, they say.

source


byb-toxic-personality-mctoxic0513.jpg

Cast of toxic characters



Everyone who works has had an unpleasant experience with a co-worker, but is that co-worker having a bad day or really disturbed? A new book — Toxic Coworkers/How to Deal with Dysfunctional People on the Job — says these are the people you should worry about when you see them around the office water cooler:

Mr. Schizoid: Potentially lethal, he is the co-worker most likely to poison the office water cooler, especially if someone's made him mad. If he were to poison the water cooler, he wouldn't stop there because he really, really doesn't like people.

Mr. Anti-Social: Also potentially lethal, he could poison the office water cooler — but he would blame whoever doesn't die for the incident. He will sabotage your computer, files, car — whatever. Otherwise, he's a very charming guy, a great salesman.

Mrs. Histrionic: The drama queen isn't a threat, but if the water cooler is poisoned, she will rattle off a dramatic account of the time at her last job where she almost died after a jealous co-worker tried to kill her by sprinkling the Monday morning doughnuts box with rat poison. She might try to fake a poison-induced seizure.

Mr. Narcissist: Unbelievably self-centered, you don't have to worry that he might poison the water cooler. But he won't care if anyone dies drinking the stuff unless the incident makes him miss his lunch hour. Then he'd really complain.

Mrs. Obsessive Compulsive: She won't drink from the water cooler — too much time wasted. If someone poisons it, she will complain that the casualties are going to contribute to missed deadlines.

Miss Dependent: She won't poison the water cooler, unless you want her to. She will carry the sick and injured to the paramedics.

Mr. Borderline: Love him or hate him — maybe at the same time, he's the guy who will blow up at the office manager for not ordering the right kind of water in the office cooler. He wouldn't poison the water, but he'll throw enough tantrums to make some co-workers wish they were already dead. Or schizoid.

Mrs. Passive Aggressive: She won't poison the water cooler — that's too overt. If someone did poison it, however, she might re-arrange the furniture so the paramedics can't get through, especially if she's mad at the boss.

Mr. Avoidant: He wouldn't poison the water cooler, because it's wrong. Very, very shy, he won't even stop at the water cooler, because he might have to talk to someone, and he might say the wrong thing or maybe he'd spill something, and then he'd be embarrassed.

Ms. Paranoid: She's not likely to poison the water cooler, but she's she's pretty sure she's the target.

source

14 March 2010

ACT Health Minister Katy Gallagher accused of Workplace Bullying Coverup at Canberra Hospital's maternity unit


Katy Gallagher says naming the person conducting the second review could compromise the process.

Katy Gallagher says naming the person conducting the second review could compromise the process.

ACT Health Minister Katy Gallagher has rejected accusation she is covering up details of an investigation into workplace bullying in Canberra Hospital's maternity unit.

The Government last month ordered two external reviews of the Canberra Hospital's obstetrics department after allegations of workplace bullying were made.

Nine obstetricians have resigned from the hospital in the past 13 months.

The first review will not be restricted to the Canberra Hospital and will consider all ACT public maternity units.

The four person review panel includes Queensland clinical adviser Professor Michael Humphreys; midwife adviser Avon Strahle; Adelaide obstetrician Associate Professor Robert Bryce; and obstetrician Dr David Rankin.

The draft terms of reference for the inquiry include assessment of mortality and clinical governance, staff roles and responsibilities, and staffing numbers and workloads.

It will also assess the service delivery and working arrangements between all obstetric units in the ACT and options for improvements.

The second review will investigate allegations of bullying at the Canberra Hospital's maternity unit.

But Ms Gallagher will not say who is conducting that review, although several sources have told the ABC that workplace relations expert Henry Price will be heading it.

"They are acting independently in terms of the way they are conducting the investigation," she said.

"So I don't want for a moment for anyone to allege we are trying to control this review in anyway, that's not the way but I am trying to make sure it's a fair process for everybody."

Opposition health spokesman Jeremy Hanson says the Government has drawn a veil of secrecy.

"How can we have any confidence that we're actually going to get all the problems come to lights," he said.

But Ms Gallagher says she is not hiding anything. She says she has received legal advice that naming the person could compromise the process.

The review will investigate any incidences that could be considered bullying or harassment that occurred in the hospital's obstetrics unit between 2006 and 2010.

Mr Hanson says he does not think the independent investigation will get to the bottom of the bullying allegations.

He says the Government is not being thorough enough.

"We want to make sure this never happens again and because Katy Gallagher is refusing to conduct a board of inquiry, refusing to name who's actually going to conduct her review and has inadequate terms of reference, we are not going to get to the bottom of what are very very serious allegations," he said.

source


22 February 2010

NEWS - UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown Investigated for BULLYING at Work!

There is a scandal brewing in the UK over Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his temper at Work. Claims have been made that his staffers at 10 Downing Street have called the UK's Bullying Hotline, to Brown hitting an aid, and that Brown has been placed under scrutiny in a Workplace investigation. At the same time the fall out has claimed victims, and National Bullying Helpline's Head Christine Pratt is also in the firing line.

Gordon Brown Bullying Row National Bullying Helpline Boss Christine Pratt Says Charity Had Calls
The head of an anti-bullying charity has hit out at Gordon Brown after revealing several Downing Street staff have called its helpline. Christine Pratt said she had "seen red" after ministers rallied round to deny claims in a new book that the PM had been warned over his treatment of staff.

Lord Mandelson said Mr Brown was emotional, demanding and impatient but not a bully after a new book detailed a string of alleged outbursts!!!!

But Mrs Pratt, who founded the National Bullying Helpline after being a workplace victim herself, accused them of failing staff by "going into denial".

I saw the Lord Mandelson statement that had a categorical denial that bullying was going on in Gordon Brown's office. I saw red.

Christine Pratt said: "I have personally taken a call from staff in the Prime Minister's office, staff who believe they are working in a bullying culture and that it has caused stress.

"We would have hoped Gordon Brown would lead by example. If an employer receives complaints they should investigate," she said.

She told Sky News: "I'm not accusing Gordon Brown of being a bully. I'm saying that our leader should lead by example and follow due process.

TORY LEADER David Cameron calls for inquiry into bullying row
David Cameron wants an investigation into the bullying allegations at 10 Downing Street.

Gordon Brown has denied that he is a violent bully after Andrew Rawnsley's book about him claimed he'd been investigated over it. .


Gordon Brown Denies Hitting Aide.


05 December 2009

Review sparks Centacare management change after Workplace Bullying Complaints

Centacare says it will overhaul management processes at its Fraser Coast offices after an independent review found the management style was inadequate for the growing organisation.

The two-month investigation was launched when staff at the Maryborough and Hervey Bay offices complained of workplace bullying, a management conflict of interest and religious discrimination directed towards a female worker wearing a cross.

The executive director of Centacare Brisbane, Peter Selwood, says the review found measures to manage workplace conflicts were poorly communicated and there was evidence of inappropriate workplace behaviour.

He says while there were different accounts of a woman being asked to remove her cross, she has accepted an apology from Centacare management.

He says he is unhappy that what has happened at the offices has tarnished the organisation's reputation as a Christian mission in the community.

The former deputy director-general of the Department of Families, Myolene Carrick, has been appointed to oversee the operations.

source

Carrick takes over Centacare

ONE OF the state’s most respected social administrators has been appointed as the acting director of Centacare Fraser Coast in a major management overhaul.
Centacare - Peter Selwood and Myolene Carrick.

ONE OF the state’s most respected social administrators and a former deputy director-general of the Department of Families has been appointed as the acting director of Centacare Fraser Coast in a major management overhaul.

Myolene Carrick’s appointment yesterday comes in the wake of a two-month inquiry by independent Brisbane-based investigator John Scoble, after current and former employees and clients complained to the Chronicle over management style and conflicts of interest within the organisation.

The inquiry, during which 57 people were interviewed, was commissioned by the Catholic archdiocese in Brisbane.

“Today was my first day. It was reflective. I’m very pleased to work with the local community and to continue to grow the presence of Centacare here,” Ms Carrick said in Hervey Bay yesterday.

Ms Carrick, who will also continue in her Brisbane-based role of Centacare’s childcare services director, replaces Jo Chorny as the head of Centacare here.

But Ms Chorny will remain in her role of service manager.

The investigation found that measures put in place to manage potential conflicts of interest were “poorly communicated”.

There was also evidence of inappropriate workplace behaviour and Jenny Bill, who was ordered to remove crosses from her neck while working at the centre as a counsellor, had been apologised to personally by Peter Selwood, Centacare executive director.

“The Centacare Council and I wish to place on record that we are most unhappy with what has occurred at Centacare Fraser Coast,” Mr Selwood said.

“The matters raised undermine public confidence in our service, negatively impact staff morale and tarnish our reputation.

“We have heard the messages of the past few months loud and clear and I am confident that through a new leadership style we will begin to move forward in a positive new direction.”

Maryborough parish’s Father Paul Kelly yesterday said the appointment of Ms Carrick to oversee the new management processes was “heartening and excellent news”.
source

24 February 2009

WORKCOVER INVESTIGATION into workplace Bullying and Harassment at Brimbank City Council - offices raided

WORKCOVER has confirmed it is working with Brimbank City Council to resolve a number of internal bullying and harassment complaints.

Last August 2008, the council was rocked by the launch of an Ombudsman’s investigation following “concerns over council’s practices and governance”.

The Ombudsman’s office raided the council offices, seizing computers and documents relating to that investigation. The outcome is yet to be determined.

A source told Star there were up to six current workplace bullying and harassment cases within the council and that further cases had been filed and settled for undisclosed sums over the past 18 months.

A WorkCover spokesman confirmed that the organisation had received complaints of this nature from Brimbank City Council employees.

Star submitted written questions to council in relation to this issue via email, as per council’s media policy.

The council responded that it was unable to answer the majority of the questions by deadline.

The council also refused to answer a question in relation to costs to the council and ratepayers for agency staff in the 2007/2008 financial year.

The same questions were sent to Maribyrnong City Council, which provided a comprehensive response.

Maribyrnong corporate services general manager Helen Morrissey advised that among council’s workforce of 800, it had dealt with 34 work-related injury claims in the past 18 months and eight cases involving allegations of bullying and harassment.

source

06 February 2009

HR - Alternatives to challenging workplace investigations

The standard of workplace investigation expected of employers is increasing. Further, employees are using alternative legal processes to challenge workplace investigations.

Many employers are aware of the case Nikolich Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 784, as it relates to company policies. It also highlights important lessons in investigating workplace grievances, and in particular, the requirement to resolve factual disputes, make clear findings and the importance of a formal framework.

Mr Nikolich worked as a client financial adviser for Goldman Sachs JB Were. In Canberra, advisers service a portfolio of clients, the success of which impacts on their remuneration. Mr Nikolich formed a team of advisers to improve the level of customer service.

When one of the team members left, Mr Nikolich understood that the departing employee’s clients would continue to be serviced by the remaining team members. However, Mr Nikolich’s manager, Mr Sutherland, reallocated the clients largely outside the team (partly to himself). Mr Nikolich lodged a formal complaint about the reallocation and alleged victimisation and intimidation by Mr Sutherland following the reallocation.

The grievance was handled by an HR manager based in Sydney. She immediately contacted Mr Nikolich and arranged a telephone conference. Mr Nikolich was unsure what outcomes he sought, although he wanted something done and did not want his position jeopardised.

The HR manager checked the reallocation with senior management, who said it was appropriate for the branch manager to allocate clients. However, Mr Sutherland handled the reallocation poorly and morale was suffering as a result. Around August 2003, the HR manager sought a response from Mr Sutherland, who denied most allegations. Mr Nikolich subsequently raised a new complaint about Mr Sutherland allegedly transferring one of Mr Nikolich’s clients to himself.

In December 2003, the HR manager provided written outcomes of the investigation. She acknowledged a lack of transparency. However, she determined that: management’s decision to reallocate the clients was “appropriate”; there was no attempt by Mr Sutherland to intimidate or cause stress to Mr Nikolich; and Mr Sutherland had stepped down from his management role.

In relation to the second complaint about a client transfer, a finding was made that there was no evidence to support the claim.

Mr Nikolich suffered a depressive condition, which led to the termination of his employment. He brought a claim for breach of contract in the Federal Court. The Federal Court found that the handling of Mr Nikolich’s complaint was “extremely inept” because there was no recognition of the seriousness of the complaint (an alleged abuse of power), the HR manager should have travelled to Canberra to conduct interviews (if necessary, a venue should have been hired for interviews to ensure confidentiality) and no effort was made to resolve the factual conflict between Mr Nikolich and Mr Sutherland. In particular, key witnesses were not interviewed.

The process was found to be in breach of the company’s grievance handling procedure and the employee was awarded $515,869 in damages. The employer is currently appealing the decision.

Another case, DET v Sinclair No 2 [2006] NSWWCCPD 163, demonstrates the importance of making fair work arrangements during an investigation. Interestingly in this case, Mr Sinclair did not challenge the termination of his employment. Rather, he brought a stress claim about how the investigation was conducted.

Mr Sinclair was a school teacher. He was informed of an allegation of improper conduct towards a student, but no details were provided. He was immediately transferred away from teaching duties. He was directed to have no contact with any student from the school, even through an intermediary. No details of the allegations were provided for nine months. Mr Sinclair claimed psychological injuries arising from the investigation process. He successfully lodged a workers’ compensation claim.

Mr Sinclair was later dismissed when two charges of misconduct were proven. Upon termination, DET (Department of Education and Training) ceased paying workers’ compensation benefits, claiming that the stress was caused by reasonable action with respect to discipline and was thus exempt under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act.

The Workers Compensation Commission found that there were two elements of DET’s investigation that were unreasonable, being the delay in providing details of the allegations and the ‘no contact’ direction. While no contact with the complainant and key witnesses was likely to be reasonable, a blanket rule was unreasonable, particularly without any details of the allegations being given. The Commission reinstated Mr Sinclair’s compensation benefits.

source: humanresourcesmagazine.com.au