Issue 104 , Friday 23 February 2018

Click here to view printer friendly PDF

In this issue

Copyright. Reproduction prohibited. Private and confidential information for subscribers only.

[1]

SWA members say strategy delivers but new priorities need bigger focus

By Helen Jones

The national narrative on bullying, harassment, occupational violence and at-risk workers issues is likely to ramp up, with Safe Work Australia (SWA) members now believing the matters should be "afforded greater attention".

IOHS associate Occupational Health News on Wednesday (February 21) has reported the federal statutory agency's members consider the Australian Work Health and Safety (WHS) Strategy 2012-22 "implicitly captures" the issues.

However, they considered such "important matters" warrant even more focus during the next five years through to 2022.

SWA members have now considered the mid-term review's 14 findings on the 10-year strategy, which were released in November (OHN 08/11/17). Their formal response will be published shortly on the authority's website.

Government bodies, unions, industry associations, WHS professionals and academics informed the mid-term review.

Live debate about vulnerable workers v work

The review found there was support for including "vulnerable workers as an additional area for national focus" over the strategy's final five years to 2022, "or in the next 10-year strategy".

"Vulnerable workers are typically considered to be young workers, migrant workers, workers in insecure jobs and those employed by labour-hire companies," the review report said. "These workers are considered vulnerable because they can lack experience, they may be fearful of raising safety concerns, and if injured they may not be aware of workers' compensation arrangements."

The review report cautioned that "defining what constitutes a 'vulnerable worker' is a sensitive issue. Feedback from stakeholders is that many groups are averse to the label. The suggestion was made that the strategy could be amended to include a broad statement about vulnerable workers, without defining exactly who they are".

"This would also provide flexibility to respond to rapid changes in the workplace that affect which workers are vulnerable and allow jurisdictions to prioritise different groups."

The review report referred to Deakin University Professor Tony LaMontagne's research on vulnerable workers. "He suggested focusing on the vulnerabilities associated with certain work conditions rather than workers," the report said.

LaMontagne believed "certain workers have worse working conditions (ie, with greater exposure to hazards), educating these workers is only part of the solution – interventions are also needed to change their conditions of work".

The review also acknowledged adding "occupational violence" as an extra area in the strategy's final five years to 2022, "or in the next 10-year strategy" was supported.

SWA to work towards driving improvements

This week the SWA spokesperson (above) reiterated to IOHS the 2012-22 strategy provided a 10-year framework to drive improvements in WHS across all jurisdictions in Australia. It was "designed to be broad and high level to provide flexibility for jurisdictions to prioritise and conduct their activities in the way most appropriate for their circumstances", she said.

SWA's next steps will see the agency "work towards driving further WHS improvements over the next five years, including 2018.

Deeper analysis heralded for better controls

SWA will:

·         undertake a deeper analysis of the causes and controls of workplace fatalities, injuries and illnesses to drive improvements. The agency will initially focus on the agriculture industry and musculoskeletal disorders;

·         explore the feasibility of national lead indicators to support improved workplace performance measurement and reporting; and

·         develop more effective information sharing and improved co-ordination of activities implemented under the strategy.

Strategy 'being used as intended': SWA

Meantime, SWA members (above) are pleased the mid-term review found most stakeholders considered the strategy was "delivering against its stated purpose and remains relevant and appropriate".

SWA perceives the strategy as an "important tool to shape WHS activities across Australia".

"The strategy is being used as intended and has shaped a range of WHS initiatives across Australia," the agency said. It was "broad and flexible enough to meet the needs of stakeholders across various industries". And "the existing priority industries and priority disorders are still relevant and need increased attention" through to 2022.

Some gains made; more to do: stakeholders

Some stakeholders suggested to the mid-term review that the number of priority industries "could be reduced, in part to help focus and co-ordinate efforts".

Others valued the current list's "flexibility … particularly in areas of Australia that do not have all priority industries".

The review report noted stakeholders agreed it was important to prioritise industries with high numbers and rates of fatalities and that it should continue. Accommodation and food services, public administration & safety, and health care & social assistance are among the priority industries.

"There was support for maintaining a heightened focus on reducing fatalities in agriculture and road freight transport" over the next five years, the report said. And there was also "some support for including construction" (see below).

Stakeholders considered elevating agriculture and road freight transport as priority industries "has enabled some gains to be made, while acknowledging there is more work to do".

Data showed that since the base period, "all priority industries" recorded a decrease in the incidence rate of serious injuries per 1,000 employees.

Agriculture's serious injuries incidence rate had dropped by 11 per cent and road freight transport had reduced by an even more significant 33%.

"The traumatic injury fatality rate (per 100,000 workers) in agriculture increased slightly (up 2%), the review report said.

Worker deaths in the agriculture sector fell 9% over the same time frame but its workforce "contracted faster", down 11%.

"All other priority industries recorded a reduction in fatality rates, including road freight transport (down 37%)."

Most stakeholders on board for continued road freight focus

One unnamed SWA member "questioned" the specific focus on road freight transport on the grounds "it may detract" from the sector's other areas "that could also benefit from national attention".

Nevertheless, the review said most stakeholders considered maintaining the national focus on road freight transport was appropriate.

It accounted for 95% of worker fatalities in the road transport industry across 2013-15.

Overall, the review said identifying seven priority industries in the strategy provided stakeholders with flexibility to respond to local circumstances.

"There is strong stakeholder support to retain them in the strategy. Data on fatalities and incidence rates in these industries also support their continued inclusion."

Value of calling out subsectors: a mixed bag

The value of "calling out subsectors" for the next five years attracted "mixed views".

"Agriculture and road freight transport continue to experience some of the highest fatality rates across all industries," the review said.

Some stakeholders' support for adding construction to the list "would effectively divide the priority industry list in two".

In a nutshell, there'd be "regular priorities" and "particular priorities".

The review warned that "distinction could undermine the scope for improvements in the 'regular priorities' and may prove counterproductive".

Alternatively, "there could be merit turning greater attention to investigating the drivers of workplace fatalities, injuries and illnesses across all priority industries".

"Given the breadth of the industries, this approach would inform the design and targeting of interventions," the review said.

Health & wellbeing need 'more explicit focus'

The review found stakeholders supported a "more explicit focus on health and wellbeing in the next 10-year strategy.

"This should reflect the role business leaders play in driving a positive culture for health and safety, while ensuring that health and wellbeing initiatives are not a substitute for compliance with work health and safety duties," the review report said.

There was also support for "considering the impact of emerging labour market trends on WHS regulation in the next 10-year strategy".

However, the thorny issue of considering whether workers' compensation elements, such as return to work, could be included in the next 10-year strategy drew only "limited support".

"Any action in this area can be pursued through the development of separate proposals to improve w/comp arrangements," the review said

IOHS

[2]

On-demand food delivery riders' accounts fuel pressures for reforms

By Emily Woods and Stephanie D'Souza

Safety issues freshly raised by on-demand food delivery workers in union surveys have added to concerns and critical perceptions about the gig industry put to a Senate committee (see below).

A total 160 workers who ride bicycles, scooters or motorcycles for food delivery companies in Sydney and Melbourne responded to Transport Workers' Union (TWU) surveys in January 2018. The riders were surveyed face-to-face and online.

IOHS news associate Workforce has reported the TWU survey results were aired at a conference of workers, union leaders and politicians at Victoria's Trades Hall on January 31. The conference discussed the future of work and changing the law to include independent contractors, among other issues.

The 160 riders worked for Foodora, Deliveroo, UberEats and other food delivery operators. Almost half (46.5%) said they or someone they knew had been injured while doing their jobs. Some reported near accidents or "minor injuries such as grazes". Others pointed to "significant" incidents that "rendered riders unable to work due to injury or damage inflicted to their bikes". One Deliveroo rider, 20, said: "I get hit nearly once a week." An UberEats rider, 26, said a friend sustained a broken bone when involved in an incident with a taxi driver. And a second UberEats rider said: "I've had minor injuries – I have been 'doored' twice by cars."

About a quarter of the riders (26.4%) said they worked more than 40 hours a week. Half (49.6%) worked 20-39 hours a week and 24% worked 0-19 hours.

Survey calculations showed "effective pay rates as low as $6.67" an hour, with 76.6% of the respondents earing hourly pay rates "well below the minimum wage for casual workers".

Almost all the riders reported being paid per delivery. A small number working on older contracts reported hourly pay rates plus a commission based on the deliveries they made.

More than 70% said they believed they should be entitled to sick leave or other entitlements.

'Comprehensive change needed': TWU

Workforce reported TWU national secretary Tony Sheldon saying the survey results were a "damning indictment" of abuse on Australian workers. "These riders are crying out for guaranteed hours, fair rates of pay, rain gear, WorkCover, sick pay and insurance for their bikes," he said. "The Federal Government may think this way of engaging workers is 'exciting' but the survey today [Jan 31] shows the levels of exploitation which exist in the on-demand economy.

"We've seen companies literally turning a blind eye to the sort of devastation that happens in what is a dangerous, poorly regulated industry that has very little voice, and we're determined to make sure those changes," Sheldon said. "There's two things needed here – there's a need for comprehensive change to the laws and for people to have a voice at work."

Rider safety 'absolutely core to our business'

Asked to comment on the survey results and TWU's claims (above), a Deliveroo spokesperson told Workforce the safety of riders was "absolutely core to our business", which was why Deliveroo provided WorkCover.

"The on-boarding process we run is very focused on learning safe riding practices and we regularly send out safety alerts to remind riders of road safety or warn of weather conditions," she said.

Deliveroo riders' average were "above the national minimum wage" and "we take great care to inform riders about how they can maximise their earnings" with the platform. Moving to an hourly rate would "actively negate the flexibility that riders want", she said. It would mean mandatory shifts and change the nature of on-demand work.

Deliveroo would like the govt to "examine whether certain benefits can be accrued according to services provided rather than hours worked", the spokesperson said.

'Flexibility-security trade-off should end'

"We want to see a change in the current employment system that will end the trade-off between the flexibility that comes with self-employment and the greater security that additional benefits would provide," the Deliveroo spokesperson (above) said.

An UberEats spokesperson said "there is demand for more flexible, independent forms of work and digital technologies are opening up reliable, diverse and unprecedented opportunities for income generation – often for those who need it most". "Delivery partner earnings vary depending on when and where partners choose to deliver. Uber Eats works closely with delivery partners to provide them additional information about where and when the most profitable times to deliver on the platform occur." 

A Foodora spokesperson said its business model was "part of the gig economy where flexibility and an autonomous workforce are the elements that make it unique, functional and appealing to workers". She said Foodora's 1,000 Australian contractors earned $20 an hour, and the company was "dedicated to providing the highest quality service and support to its customers, and safety for its contracted riders".

IOHS

[3]

Regulatory bedlam in the gig economy: will govts keep pace?

By Stephanie D'Souza

"It is all about choice," is what a Senate committee majority has said about Australia's gig economy in its September 2017 Corporate Avoidance of the Fair Work Act inquiry report.

Australian Labor Party and Australian Greens senators' "the gig economy: hyper flexibility or sham contracting?" majority chapter posited polar opposite perceptions of the industry (above) many jurisdictions are trying to navigate.

Entities like ride-sharing app Uber, task-sharing app Airtasker and food delivery app Deliveroo thrived on the convenience they provided clients and the diminished liability they enjoyed by "contracting" workers rather than employing them, the Senate Education and Employment References Committee majority found.

The majority's report contrasted the gig economy's strengths and weaknesses: "To its proponents, the gig economy is a brave new world allowing people to be masters of their own fate: to choose the work they do and for how much they do it. To its critics, the gig economy is dangerously unregulated and creates fertile ground for exploitation: the promise of choice rings hollow."

The committee didn't mince words when it came to analysing the gig economy's structure, finding: "the committee can only conclude that 'gig economy' is just a more discrete and sanitised way for companies to abrogate their obligations by requiring workers to be contractors".

The majority report, written by Australian Labor Party and Australian Greens senators (Coalition members dissenting), made several recommendations to curtail the lawlessness it discovered during the committee's inquiry. The majority recommended the Federal Government should:

Collaborate with state and territory safety regulators to review health and safety and workers' compensation legislation. The review should ensure companies operating in the gig economy are responsible for the safety of workers engaged in the gig economy;

Amend the Fair Work Act to ensure it protects all workers and gives them access to labour standards, minimum wages and conditions established under the Act. The government should ensure the rights accrue to dependent and "on demand contracting, preventing those arrangements from being disguised as independent contracting". The report said: "These amendments should capture the dependant contractor who is dependent upon a labour-hire company, a company using a work allocation platform or a major corporation using a relationship power imbalance to exercise control over the worker";

Bolster the employment conditions of workers engaged in the gig economy by requiring platform providers to verify all platform users comply with minimum standards, "as a matter of priority"; and

Legislate to ensure workers in the gig economy are protected by a minimum wage by requiring platform providers to provide clear minimum labour price guidelines aligned to the relevant awards for different categories of work. The majority said information about the relevant union for the category of work (where multiple unions would have coverage the Australian Council of Trade Unions should be provided as a point of referral).

Coalition senators flag need for certainty

In a dissenting report, committee chair and WA Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds said it was important Australian employees and employers "have the certainty of a strong industrial relations framework".

It was also important large-scale changes "are not made unnecessarily", Reynolds said. Overall, Reynolds said the committee's majority report had not demonstrated there was a widespread problem of "corporate avoidance" of the Fair Work Act.

Most businesses 'comply with responsibilities 'under federal framework

Reynolds (above) said it appeared Australian businesses were "overwhelmingly complying with their responsibilities under this industrial relations framework". That conclusion was drawn from "the paucity of evidence of any actual breaches of the Act in the evidence considered".

The Senate noted the committee's inquiry report in September.

How should lawmakers proceed?

IOHS covers the arguments from companies, experts and unions within the complex regulatory web surrounding the gig economy, and what peak bodies are saying lawmakers should do next.

Defining the gig economy

In its landmark report into the space, Busting the Airtasker Myth, Unions NSW identified the four key features of work in the gig economy:

Work is fragmented into specific individual tasks or jobs and workers are engaged on a task by task basis with no guarantees of continuous work;

Work is performed by individual workers, but may be commissioned by an individual or a business;

Labour transactionsbetween workers and individuals/businesses are facilitated by for-profit companies that charge users for their services (eg, Airtasker, Uber). These transactions are performed through web-based applications that for-profit companies manage and control; and

Workers are classified by the facilitating companies as independent contractors. The workers are not afforded any employment protections or minimum standards for their work performance.

According to the companies involved, the term "disruption", often associated with the gig economy, is meant to evoke the unprecedented asset of this style of "hyper-flexible" work.

Airtasker submitted to the Senate committee inquiry that its goals as a company were inherently aligned with the workers' needs, despite the unconventional work structure.

Airtasker CEO Tim Fung told the Senate committee at a hearing: "I would be careful to say that averages are averages, but overall we ourselves have a complete vested interest in pushing the price up. In fact, a race to the bottom would only reduce our own revenue. We did that on purpose to align ourselves with the workers of our community, to say 'Only when you win do we win; when you get paid more, we get a bigger fee'."

However, the committee majority argued that aligning of interests only went so far, saying only workers with specialised skills had the "leverage" to command higher fees.

"It is unlikely that the freedom to be paid under minimum wage is really about flexibility and choice, for workers at least," the committee majority found.

Instead, the majority preferred Unions NSW secretary Mark Morey's testimony where he argued there was a steady shift of responsibility onto workers as work became casualised.

"Some employers are using the traditional definition of 'independent contractor' combined with online platforms to escape their employment obligations. In fact, the traditional definition of an 'employee' ensures that people do have workers' compensation, insurance protections and other workplace protections. This expanded use of the definition of a contractor, combined with online platforms, means that employers are now vacating the field of any obligations to those employees," Morey told senators.

Who are the 'cowboys' of the gig economy?

Grant Porter, founder of Return to Work injury management consultancy 'Rethinko', went further, calling the gig economy the "wild west" and companies within it "cowboys".

Porter was addressing an Informa Safety In Action conference in Melbourne, saying "uberisation" of the workforce was leading to some workers finding their work increasingly "precarious, insecure and fragmented".

He said the factors produced:

·         Eroded pay and benefits;

·         Removal of any safety net;

·         Weak or non-existent labour unions; and

·         Denial of legal protections, including workers' compensation.

Porter told delegates misclassifying workers left them open to abuse, and that some companies were engaging in the practice deliberately.

He noted an October 2016 landmark UK tribunal case found Uber drivers should be treated as employees with rights to minimum work conditions. However, he noted it remained unclear whether the approach could apply in Australia.

Porter said it was "important to look at the [Fair Work Act] sham contracting provisions" and emphasise the reality of the work relationship rather than focusing on "cleverly drafted contracts".

He referred to several hazards associated with gig work, including job insecurity impacting on mental health. "Gig workers can work anywhere, but not all places are compatible with gig work and lack the social benefits of work," he said.

Harassment, unfair treatment, discrim 'common in gig work'

Porter (above) identified sexual harassment, unfair treatment and discrimination as "common in gig work".

"Gig workers are often afraid of complaining due to fear [of] losing out on work. Many gig workers also fear that gig platform will retaliate by deactivating access if [they] speak up," Porter said.

Safety kits and collaboration

The committee (above) did hear about measures gig economy companies were implementing to uphold standards and conditions.

Deliveroo submitted: "We take safety extremely seriously and have worked in consultation with Brake, the UK's leading road safety organisation, to design a hyper-reflective rider kit which maximises visibility of riders to all road users."

Deliveroo said they provided the kit to all their drivers and made no attempt to prevent riders from using it while making deliveries for their competitors. "This safety equipment is made available to the rider through the payment of a deposit, which is repaid in full at the conclusion of a rider's supply agreement with Deliveroo upon return of the kit."

The majority report noted a "landmark" collaboration between Unions NSW and Airtasker to provide minimum wages, working conditions and workers' compensation arrangements for their workers.

However, the committee majority seemed unconvinced that was enough to mitigate the effects of the power imbalance between workers and what they viewed as the workers' employers.

"Gig companies have not invented a new way of working – they have exploited 'a cloak of innovation and progress to reintroduce archaic and outdated labour practices'," the committee majority found.

"The gig economy is normalising labour conditions it took generations of political struggle to stamp out in this country: precarious circumstances in which a person may not know where their next few dollars are coming from: insecure, unprotected, sporadic work."

It emphasised Airtasker and Deliveroo had supported its work, and Uber had refused to participate.

"It should be noted that the committee repeatedly approached Uber, the subject of considerable criticism and concern, without success. In this instance the committee chose not to summons Uber to appear at a public hearing, being of the view that the company's unwillingness to engage with Parliament speaks for itself."

Ultimately the committee majority said it was confident "legislative change to protect workers in the gig economy is imminent".

"Companies [that] understand this and work with unions and government to drive positive change will be best placed to grow their business in a legal and ethical way," it found.

IOHS

[4]

Procedural fairness is crucial: former ADF complaints investigator

By Stephanie D'Souza

"Procedural fairness" and "natural justice" is at the heart of all effective investigations that explore employee complaints about co-workers, including alleged bullying, former Australian Defence Force (ADF) investigator Jason Clark says.

"Sometimes it involves a delicate balancing of competing interests," Clark said when addressing Informa's Safety In Action conference in Melbourne (above).

Clark was previously joint investigation office commander for the ADF Investigative Service.

He handled cases involving harassment, sexual assault, bullying, workplace violence, drug and alcohol misuse and fraud. Clark is now the Associate Director of consultancy Worklogic.

At the conference Clark detailed Worklogic's "seven golden rules" for bullying investigations, based on his experiences.

One caveat he emphasised before he began: "One thing I'll say about workplace investigations – they don't have to be police investigations. We don't require people to be the police in the workplace because there is a different standard. But we do have rules."

Rule no 1: Hearing rule

Clark told delegates they must provide respondents with as many details as possible, including: notice of possible disciplinary outcomes, details of all allegations and evidence the employer would consider. Co-workers should be given a "timely" opportunity to respond to bullying complaints, he said.

"What's the difference between the letter of complaint or the allegations? Allegations are a lot more specific – more detail on the who, what where, when, and how. The complaint letter will be quite broad. To get to the allegations stage you will have had to have interviewed the complainant to extract more information from them," Clark explained.

He said detailed allegations should include only facts and alleged behaviour and should leave out the alleged impacts. They should appear in chronological order and be numbered, with only one paragraph per alleged behaviour.

Bullying alllegations 'often hard to pin down'

Clark (above) noted bullying allegations were often hard to pin down to a particular date or time, given the behaviours could be claimed to have occurred over prolonged time. He said in those instances it was acceptable to use date or time ranges where the behaviours allegedly occurred.

He emphasised the importance of giving respondents a reasonable amount of time to deliver their responses. For example, it would not be procedurally fair to deliver 15 allegations to a respondent co-worker at a 10am meeting and expect them to respond at 2pm the same day.

Rule no 2: No bias rule

"The investigator should not be either a friend of the party or have any involvement in the matter," Clark said. Though intuitive, Clark said the rule could be hard to achieve in small organisations.

He told delegates the key was to avoid actual and perceived bias.

"If your process is robust enough and the behaviour throughout the investigation is fair and transparent then you'll remove some of the perceptions. It depends on how much involvement you've had in other disciplinary scenarios. Operationally, it may not always be possible for your organisation to have that separation and then you might look into using someone external," he said.

However, Clark cautioned that external consultants could be expensive and time consuming. Lengthy investigations could comprise an investigation's integrity, he explained.

Rule no 3: Maintaining confidentiality

Clark threw to delegates for a show of hands for who thought it was "easy" to maintain confidentiality. Few put their hands up.

"It doesn't matter how many times you tell people about the investigation process – humans are humans. They will go out and talk about it. The policy about handling misconduct should also have something in it to deal with confidentiality," Clark said.

He said it was important to require confidentiality of all participants in the process but inform them they could still speak to their support people or human resources.

He advised investigators to only tell the people necessary to the process, not those on its outskirts.

Commenting on his own firm's work he said, "We only inform people about the process as we need to. […] We don't start talking to witnesses until we actually need to go and speak to them."

Clark advised delegates to conduct interviews and meetings in private and discreet areas where possible. He acknowledged it could be hard in hot-desking environments where break-out rooms were like "fish-bowls".

Despite the importance of confidentiality, Clark emphasised the need to manage complainants' expectations.

"We need to be up-front and transparent with people that parts of their evidence will be shown to people. Quite often that really needs to be articulated," Clark said, referring to complainants who may not want their complaints disclosed to other workers.

Sometimes maintaining absolute confidentiality was clearly challenging, given Rule no 1 where employers should give respondents and witnesses a fair opportunity to respond.

Rule no 4: Communicate the process  

Ideally people would only need to be acquainted with the process once in their working lives so it was extremely important to explain the process thoroughly, Clark told delegates.

Clark said investigators should explain to all participants what the investigation process was going to look like and how they would be involved. Investigators should also say what would happen with their evidence; what would happen with others' evidence; the process involved in identifying and providing evidence; what they could expect from the outcome, and "what they can expect from you".

Investigators should make clear each participant could access a support person, although there were limitations on how far that support could go.

"It gets a bit tricky when people want to bring their union representative. Sometimes, depending on how often the union representative is involved, they may not understand where we are in the process," Clark said. He emphasised the purpose of a support person was to provide moral support, not answer questions on the worker's behalf.

The restrictions need to be provided up-front and in writing to involved workers.

Rule no 5: Consider ALL the evidence

Clark said evidence related to questions of facts, not value judgements, as part of investigators' "360°collection of evidence".

"This is all about availing yourself of as much information as you possibly can. It's got to be as rich as it possibly can. You've got to collect as much as you can," Clark said.

"You've also got to give everyone an opportunity to see what's relevant to them."

Rule no 6: Investigate diligently but promptly

Clark told delegates his firm digitally recorded its interviews, where possible, during the course of an investigation. The records formed part of its "rigorous" and diligent approach, noting hand-written notes weren't always accurate.

"You need to be rigorous. This is a very important part of the workplace process these days," Clark said.  

"You've got someone who's taken that step over the threshold to come and speak to you, maybe the complainant, about bullying. They're basically putting the onus on you to make sure the organisation does something."

From that perspective, in writing an investigation report and explaining methodology and approach, investigators should be aware the person reading it generally would not have read something like that before.

"They need to understand how you got from 'A' to 'B' and how you made the decision you did."

Clark differentiated between legitimate delays like mental health leave and illegitimate delays like a participant's lawyer being busy on other matters or unscheduled holidays. Clark termed the latter delays as "tactics".

"Consider that as part of the credibility of the person you're interviewing," he warned.

Rule no 7: Make procedurally fair findings

Three steps for making procedurally fair findings were:

Review all the evidence and decide where the weight of the evidence lies;

Let the evidence speak rather than any preconceived ideas about the parties or what the organisation or others believed; and

Ask: Are your findings of fact defensible?

Clark said conscious or unconscious bias was quite "obvious" to identify among people who had preconceived ideas about the individuals involved.

'After care'

Following an investigation, Clark emphasised that "after-care" was important yet often forgotten.

"Your ultimate aim is to get everyone back to work. There are some benefits to just taking a breath and having a look at the process – what has the process delivered to you beyond a 'proven' or 'not proven'," Clark said.

He said potential lessons could be learned by asking:

1.     Have you found flaws or omissions in the policy?

2.     Are there flaws or omissions in the complaint process?

3.     Have staff being adequately trained about behaviour requirements?

4.     Is the culture reflecting the standards expected? and

5.     Are managers dealing with issues promptly?

IOHS

[5]

Editorial team

Managing Editor: Helen Jones. Email:helen.jones@tr.com and phone (02) 8587 7683. Journalists: Stephanie D'Souza, Emily Woods.