SAMPLE

Confidential
Investigation Report
Report Organisation
Disciplinary / other Investigation
Allegations against < Respondent >

Investigator [NAME]

Date DD/MM/YYYY
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

Table of Contents
1. Background................................................................................................................................4
2. Methodology...............................................................................................................................4
3. Summary of Findings.................................................................................................................5
4. <Organisation> Code of Conduct...............................................................................................9
5. <Organisation> Harassment, Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy............................9
6. Allegation 1, part a...................................................................................................................10
Discussion of Evidence................................................................................................................10
The Complainant......................................................................................................................10
Witness 1..................................................................................................................................11
Witness 2..................................................................................................................................11
Response provided by < Respondent >...................................................................................11
Analysis........................................................................................................................................12
Finding..........................................................................................................................................13
7. Allegation 1, parts b, c, d, e, f and g.........................................................................................13
Evidence.......................................................................................................................................13
The Complainant......................................................................................................................13
Witness 1..................................................................................................................................14
Response provided by < Respondent >...................................................................................14
Analysis........................................................................................................................................16
Finding..........................................................................................................................................17
8. Allegation 1, part h...................................................................................................................17
Evidence.......................................................................................................................................17
The Complainant......................................................................................................................17
Witness 3..................................................................................................................................17
Witness 1..................................................................................................................................18
Witness 4..................................................................................................................................18
Response provided by < Respondent >...................................................................................19
Analysis........................................................................................................................................19
Finding..........................................................................................................................................19
9. Allegation 1, part i.....................................................................................................................20
Evidence.......................................................................................................................................20
The Complainant......................................................................................................................20
Witness 1..................................................................................................................................21
Witness 4..................................................................................................................................22
Witness 5..................................................................................................................................22
Response provided by < Respondent >...................................................................................23
Analysis........................................................................................................................................24

Confidential Investigation Report 2

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

Finding..........................................................................................................................................25
10. Allegation 1, parts j and k.....................................................................................................26
Evidence.......................................................................................................................................26
Witness 1..................................................................................................................................26
Witness 2..................................................................................................................................28
Response provided by < Respondent >...................................................................................28
Analysis........................................................................................................................................30
Finding..........................................................................................................................................31
11. Recommendations...............................................................................................................31
12. Annexures............................................................................................................................32

Confidential Investigation Report 3

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

1. Background

1.1 The Complainant was contracted to <Organisation> as a Senior Business Analyst for six
months from [DATE]. In this role The Complainant reported directly to Witness 1, Project
Manager.
1.2 Witness 1 is also contracted to <Organisation> until [DATE]. Witness 1 is the Project
Manager in the Finance and Revenue branch and has held this role since [DATE]. Witness 1
reports directly to Person 1, Director Finance and Revenue.
1.3 On [DATE], The Respondent commenced employment as the Financial Systems Manager
reporting directly to Witness 2, Manager Accounting. In this role The Respondent has two
positions that directly report to him: Senior Business Analyst, held by Witness 4 and a
Systems Support Analyst. The Respondent was previously contracted to <Organisation> for
a six month fixed term during YEAR. During this contract period The Respondent reported
directly to Witness 1.
1.4 On [DATE], after an incident involving The Respondent the previous day, The Complainant
submitted her resignation to Witness 1. 1 The Complainant’s last day of employment was
[DATE]. On [DATE], The Complainant sent an email complaint to Person 1 that outlined
complaints of inappropriate behaviour by The Respondent towards her.2
1.5 On [DATE], Wise Workplace was engaged by <Organisation> Contact, Group General
Manager Human Resources, to conduct a disciplinary investigation into allegations of
misconduct against The Complainant.3 <Organisation> Contact also provided documented
terms of reference for the investigation.4

2. Methodology

2.1 On [DATE], The Respondent was notified of the investigation by letter from <Organisation>
Contact.5
2.2 During the investigation the following people were interviewed on the dates specified:
 The Complainant6 [DATE]
 Witness 17 [DATE]
 Witness 38 [DATE]
 Witness 49 [DATE]
10
 Witness 2 [DATE]

1
Annexure 3 – Resignation -
2
Annexure 5 – Complaint email -
3
Annexure 1 – Engagement letter – Wise Workplace
4
Annexure 2 – Terms of reference
5
Annexure 13 – Notification letter - The Respondent
6
Annexure 6 – Interview transcript - The Complainant
7
Annexure 7 – Interview transcript - Witness 1
8
Annexure 9 – Interview transcript – Witness 3
9
Annexure 10 – Interview transcript - Witness 4
10
Annexure 11 – Interview transcript - Witness 2

Confidential Investigation Report 4

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

2.3 The interviews were voice recorded and a transcription of the interview was provided to each
interviewee. During his interview, Witness 1 provided a number of documents for
consideration.11
2.4 On DATE, The Respondent was provided with a letter from <Organisation> Contact that
outlined allegations of misconduct against him.12
2.5 On DATE, The Respondent provided a written notice of response to the allegation letter. 13
2.6 On DATE, The Respondent was interviewed at the office of <Organisation>. The interview
was voice recorded and transcribed. The Respondent was provided with a transcription of
the interview. He has not returned a signed copy to date.14
2.7 On DATE Client Contact, Lead Business Partner, Human Resources and Business Services,
<Organisation>, advised by email that the receptionist Person 3 had declined to be
interviewed in relation to allegation 1, part g.15
2.8 Client Contact advised by email on DATE that <Organisation> would not be able to provide
telephone records to the Investigator in a timely manner.
2.9 On DATE, The Respondent provided a written response to the allegations.16

3. Summary of Findings

3.1 That between DATE and DATE whilst employed by <Organisation> The Respondent
engaged in inappropriate workplace behaviour, specifically:

Allegation Evidence Code of Conduct Finding

a.
On DATE The Respondent subjected The Complainant 3.1 Not substantiated
The Complainant to an interview *Transcript Responsibility to
process and asked her intrusive Q33, 40 – 48, 127 - the State
questions in relation to her 133 Government
knowledge of SAP including a
request for her to produce her Witness 1 3.2
resume. *Transcript Respect for people
Q98, 103 – 108,
& 118 3.9
*Email from The Discrimination and
Respondent17 harassment

Witness 2
*Transcript
Q55 - 60

The Respondent
*Written Response
*Transcript
Q40 – 68

b.
Disengaged and declined to The Complainant 3.1 Not substantiated
11
Annexure 8 – Documents – Witness 1
12
Annexure 14 – Allegation letter - The Respondent
13
Annexure 15 – Notice of response letter - The Respondent
14
Annexure 16 – Interview transcript - The Respondent
15
Annexure 12 – Email notification – Person 3 declined interview
16
Annexure 17 – Written response to allegations by The Respondent
17
Annexure 8b – Email from The Respondent re The Complainant

Confidential Investigation Report 5

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

communicate effectively with The *Transcript Responsibility to due to insufficient

Complainant. Q41 – 49 the State evidence.
Government
Witness 1
Transcript 3.2
Q103 – 108 Respect for people

The Respondent 3.9

*Written Response Discrimination and
*Transcript harassment
Q69 - 73

c.
Failed to acknowledge, make eye The Complainant 3.1 Not substantiated
contact or greet The Complainant. *Transcript Responsibility to due to insufficient
Q41 – 49 the State evidence
Government
The Respondent
*Written Response 3.2
*Transcript Respect for people
Q73 - 78
3.9
Discrimination and
harassment

d.
Refused to use the same lift as The The Complainant 3.1 Not substantiated
Complainant. *Transcript Responsibility to due to insufficient
Q41 – 49 the State evidence
Government
The Respondent
*Written Response 3.2
*Transcript Respect for people
Q82 - 91
3.9
Discrimination and
harassment

e.
Refused to pass The Complainant in The Complainant 3.1 Not substantiated
the hallway, instead turning into a *Transcript Responsibility to due to insufficient
cubicle to avoid walking past her. Q41 - 49 the State evidence
Government
The Respondent
*Written Response 3.2
*Transcript Respect for people
Q92 – 94
3.9
Discrimination and
harassment

f.
On or about DATE when The The Complainant 3.1 Not substantiated
Complainant greeted The *Transcript Responsibility to due to insufficient
Respondent with ‘good morning’ The Q55 - 49 the State evidence
Respondent responded with a ‘grrrr’ Government
sound. The Respondent
*Written Response 3.2
*Transcript Respect for people
Q95 – 100

Confidential Investigation Report 6

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

3.9
Discrimination and
harassment

g.
Made hidden observations of The The Complainant 3.1 Not substantiated
Complainant whilst she was in the *Transcript Responsibility to due to insufficient
reception area talking to the Q49 - 54 the State evidence
receptionist. Government
The Respondent
*Written Response 3.2
*Transcript Respect for people
Q101 – 106
3.9
Discrimination and
harassment

h.
Whilst The Complainant and Witness The Complainant 3.1 Not substantiated
3 were working to rectify a problem *Transcript Responsibility to
with the PPD project The Q60 & 61 the State
Respondent declined to open the Government
relevant periods in SAP and Witness 4
‘sniggered’ at them. *Transcript 3.2
Q85 – 127 Respect for people
*Email information
3.9
Witness 3 Discrimination and
*Transcript harassment
Q39 – 50

Witness 1
*Transcript
Q119 – 122

The Respondent
*Written Response
*Transcript
Q107 - 126

i.
On DATE, The Respondent refused The Complainant 3.1 Substantiated
to attend a meeting that he had *Transcript Responsibility to
organised with Person 2 of Company Q67 – 83 & the State
1 and Witness 1 because The Q91 - 92 Government
Complainant was in attendance at *Complaint email
the meeting. 3.2
Witness 4 Respect for people
*Transcript
Q45 – 84 3.9
Discrimination and
Witness 1 harassment
*Transcript
Q43 – 82,
88 – 97 & 99
*Email from The
Respondent18

Witness 5
18
Annexure 8b – Email from The Respondent re The Complainant

Confidential Investigation Report 7

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

*File Note19

The Respondent
*Written Response
*Transcript
Q127 - 183

j.
On DATE The Respondent sent an The Complainant 3.1 Substantiated
email to Witness 1 which contained *Transcript Responsibility to
derogatory or demeaning comments Q111 – 114 the State
about The Complainant including: Government
Witness 1
i. She spends all day on the *Transcript 3.2
telephone on personal calls Q83 – 87, 109 Respect for people
ii. She produces no output – 118,
iii. She has a very limited 130 - 134 3.9
understanding of SAP *Email from The Discrimination and
iv. She has a superficial Respondent20 harassment
understanding of the Projects
manual The Respondent
v. I don’t think there is any reason *Written Response
to have poor performing *Transcript
contractors in Finance Q187 - 228
vi. Frankly from my perspective, I
think The Complainant’s
contract should be ended.
vii. I do not see a continuing role for
The Complainant
viii. I’m certainly not interested in
providing meetings for her to sit
in.

k.
On DATE The Respondent made The Complainant 3.1 Substantiated
threatening comments to Witness 1 *Transcript Responsibility to
in the same email referred to in Q111 – 114 the State
allegation j above, including: Government
Witness 1
i. I don’t believe you are *Transcript 3.2
effectively supervising The Q83 – 87, 109 Respect for people
Complainant – 118,
ii. Now I’m not sure who is actually 130 - 134 3.9
in charge here but I’m a *Email from The Discrimination and
permanent manager at Respondent21 harassment
<ORGANISATION> and you are
a contractor The Respondent
iii. If I request something I expect *Written Response
you to cooperate. If you don’t *Transcript
want to cooperate, then we have Q253 - 270
a problem
iv. I think you have a different view
on a few subjects now and so
I’m coming to the viewpoint that
working with you is no longer
productive.

19
Annexure 4 – File note - Witness 5
20
Annexure 8b – Email from The Respondent re The Complainant
21
Annexure 8b – Email from The Respondent re The Complainant

Confidential Investigation Report 8

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

4. <Organisation> Code of Conduct

4.1 The <Organisation> Code of Conduct states in part:

The community is entitled to expect the business of <Organisation> to be conducted
with efficiency, economy, fairness, impartiality and integrity. To meet these
expectations, all staff must comply with the following principles:
3.1 Responsibility to the State Government
Staff must comply with any relevant legislative, industrial and administrative
requirements and <Organisation> policies, namely Harassment, Discrimination and
Workplace Bullying policy.
3.2 Respect for people
Staff must treat members of the public and their colleagues fairly and consistently, in a
nondiscriminatory manner, and with proper regard for their rights and obligations. They
must perform their duties in a professional and responsible manner. They must ensure
that their decisions and actions are reasonable, fair and appropriate to the
circumstances based upon a consideration of all the relevant facts and supported by
adequate documentation.
3.9 Discrimination and harassment
Bullying is never acceptable in the workplace.

5. <Organisation> Harassment, Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy

5.1 The <Organisation> Harassment, Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy states in
part:
5.2 Defining discrimination, bullying and harassment
Harassment or bullying
Workplace bullying or harassment is behaviour that is unwanted and/or unreciprocated,
that offends, humiliates or intimidates the recipient and creates a hostile environment.
Harassment or bullying can take many forms:
It can be a single event or repeated behaviours. It may involve verbal abuse,
electronic media (eg emails, social networking sites), deliberate damage to property,
physical abuse and, based on available information, the behaviour would be
considered offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening by the individual to whom
it is directed, or by others who have witnessed it.
It can take place between co-workers, a staff member and their supervisor, or a staff
member and another person in the workplace such as a customer or client.
It may include disrupting a person’s work, workspace, interfering with their possessions
or the equipment they use; excluding the person from decision making or routine social
occasions; mimicry; practical jokes; or asking intrusive questions.
Intimidating a person. In the worst case, this can be physical or verbal assault; but
may also include such things as derogatory or demeaning comments, isolating the
person, setting impossible targets or assigning meaningless tasks.

Confidential Investigation Report 9

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

5.2.2 What is not harassment or bullying

It is not harassment of bullying to:

Express a difference of opinion or provide constructive feedback in a courteous

manner;
Carry out legitimate management decisions, such as disciplinary action, transfer,
warning, reallocation of work to meet deadlines, recruitment and promotion decisions,
or terminating an employee;
Giving legitimate instructions and expecting them to be carried out;
Setting realistic standards of performance, and discussing and guiding work
performance improvements;
Formal counselling and other management action as part of the Performance
Management process;
Making a complaint about another staff member or manager if the complaint is made in
a reasonable way.
5.3 Responsibilities
Managers have a responsibility to:
Create a positive work environment and clearly convey their expectations of staff.
Demonstrate leadership by proactively demonstrating positive behaviour and an
interest in staff to support an inclusive culture that recognises and rewards good
performance.
Apply policies and procedures to support an inclusive, fair and equitable workplace,
free from harassment and bullying.
Staff are responsible for:
Their own behaviour. Staff need to be aware of how their behaviour may be perceived
or impact others.
Communicating with respect and courtesy, not only to other staff but also to the
community they serve.
Understanding and comply with the Code of Conduct and this policy.
Reviewing their own behaviour and modifying their conduct if they are aware that it
may be perceived as discourteous.

6. Allegation 1, part a

It is alleged that between DATE and DATE whilst employed by <ORGANISATION> The
Respondent engaged in inappropriate workplace behaviour, specifically:

a) On DATE The Respondent subjected The Complainant to an interview process

and asked her intrusive questions in relation to her knowledge of including a
request for her to produce her resume.

Discussion of Evidence

The Complainant

Confidential Investigation Report 10

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

6.1 During her interview The Complainant claimed that in early DATE The Respondent
conducted an ‘interview session’ with her to determine her knowledge of the SAP (Systems,
Applications and Products) accounting software. This occurred at The Complainant’s desk
approximately one week after The Respondent commenced in his role.
6.2 The Respondent also asked The Complainant to produce her resume. She stated:

“He asked me the very first time when he interviewed me or whatever it was that he did. I
just went yeah, okay and I wasn't going to - I mean I think it's a very personal thing to
pass on to anyone and why would you need my resume?”
6.3 The Complainant stated that initially she was happy to provide The Respondent with details
of her SAP experience and background employment. However each time The Complainant
detailed her knowledge of SAP, The Respondent advised her that he knew how to do it
better.

Witness 1
6.4 During his interview Witness 1 stated that when The Respondent commenced in his role he
began an onboard process, which included discussions with The Complainant to obtain
information and assess The Complainant’s capabilities. After a couple of weeks The
Respondent began to comment generally that The Complainant’s standard of work fell short
of the level he expected, was substandard and inadequate. Witness 1 believed that although
there was a prescriptive standard set, he presumed that the standard The Respondent
expected from The Complainant was his own personally imposed standard.
6.5 In DATE, The Respondent told Witness 1 that in his opinion, The Complainant was being
unproductive. Witness 1 stated:
“He made statements that he thought she was ineffectual and he would like to see her
CV. I asked why. He looked at me a little bit blankly, shrugged his shoulders as if to
indicate – you know, just for interest’s sake, would seem to be the interpretation that I took
from that. I didn’t respond to the request.

On the first hand, a CV contains personal and private information. I was unsure – well, I
was legally unsure but I was tending towards the perspective that it was information that
whilst it is not inappropriate for him to be viewing, he would need to get the permission of
the person owing the information to have that.”22

6.6 Witness 1 stated that he spoke to The Complainant who declined to consent to providing a
copy of her resume to The Respondent.
6.7 The Respondent made a subsequent request to Witness 1 for the resume; however Witness
1 was non committal.
6.8 In his email to Witness 1 on DATE, The Respondent made reference to the requests for The
Complainant’s resume. The email stated:
“I have previously made two requests to you to get a copy of The Complainant’s resume,
but for some reason that is a problem and you don’t want to provide. I’m no longer
interested.”23

Witness 2
6.9 During his interview, Witness 2 stated that The Respondent had requested The
Complainant’s resume from Witness 1. Witness 2 also stated that he did not know why The
Respondent would need that resume.
22
Annexure 7 – Interview transcript – Witness 1 – Q118
23
Annexure 8b – Email from The Respondent

Confidential Investigation Report 11

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

Response provided by < Respondent >

6.10 The Respondent denied this allegation. In his written response The Respondent wrote:
“I deny this allegation. I have never ‘subjected The Complainant to an interview process
and asked her intrusive questions’.

I have never sat in a room with The Complainant and asked her questions in an interview
format.
I may have, from time to time, asked her questions of a general nature to understand what
experience she actually has with SAP systems, but I cannot recall any specific event.
I have never asked The Complainant for a copy of her resume.
I did ask Witness 1 if I could review The Complainant’s resume. The reason for the
requests was to get an understanding of her experience. Witness 1 has ignored those
requests.

In my view making a request to view a resume does not amount to misconduct.”24

6.11 In relation to Witness 1 not providing him with a copy of The Complainant’s resume, The
Respondent wrote:
“I did ask Witness 1 (email) to provide a copy of The Complainant’s resume – and for
some reason he does not want to do that. He simply ignores my requests.
I suspect there is some underlying reasons why the resume has not been forthcoming.”25
6.12 The Respondent stated that he suspected that the resume would disclose that The
Complainant had limited SAP experience and a job history that Witness 1 did not want The
Respondent to know about.
6.13 During his interview The Respondent stated that as he was responsible for ensuring that the
Senior Business Analysts were using the SAP system appropriately, he was entitled to
request a copy of The Complainant’s resume. However he was unable to recall whether he
has requested to view any other Analyst’s resume.
6.14 Although The Respondent agreed that he was not responsible for the direct supervision of
The Complainant, he believed he needed to see her resume because he was responsible for
managing the financial and accounting systems. The Respondent claimed that he was
required to determine whether The Complainant was a competent operator of the system and
whether she had appropriate access.
6.15 The Respondent was unable to recall whether he provided Witness 1 a reason for his
request to produce The Complainant’s resume.

Analysis

6.16 It is apparent that shortly after The Respondent commenced his role, he sought to confirm
The Complainant’s experience with and knowledge level of the SAP system.
6.17 The manner in which The Respondent obtained this information varied from an ’interview
session’ as described by The Complainant to asking ‘her questions of a general nature’ as
described by The Respondent. However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that that
The Complainant was interrogated or subjected to intrusive questions, in a harassing or
disrespectful manner contrary to the <Organisation> Code of Conduct or the <Organisation>
Harassment, Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy.
6.18 It is also apparent that the responses The Complainant gave The Respondent caused him to
request a copy of her resume. Witness 1 corroborated The Respondent’s evidence that he
made two requests to Witness 1 for The Complainant’s resume.
24
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent
25
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent

Confidential Investigation Report 12

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

6.19 Witness 2 was not aware of any business reason why The Respondent would require The
Complainant’s resume. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, The
Respondent’s evidence that he was responsible for ensuring that the Senior Business
Analysts were using the SAP system appropriately is accepted as is his belief that he had a
legitimate management reason to request The Complainant’s resume: he believed he had
responsibility to establish The Complainant’s knowledge of the SAP system.
6.20 It was appropriate for The Respondent to make this request for The Complainant’s resume
via Witness 1. The Respondent made legitimate management decisions in requesting The
Complainant’s resume. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that The Respondent’s
request was unreasonable, unfair or inappropriate in the circumstances.
6.21 After consideration of the information provided by The Complainant, Witness 1, Witness 2
and The Respondent, there is insufficient evidence to establish that The Respondent’s
behaviour towards The Complainant amounted to bullying or harassment or was otherwise
disrespectful under the <Organisation> Code of Conduct or the <Organisation> Harassment,
Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy

Finding
6.22 On the balance of probabilities this allegation is not substantiated.

7. Allegation 1, parts b, c, d, e, f and g

It is alleged that between DATE and DATE whilst employed by <ORGANISATION> The
Respondent engaged in inappropriate workplace behaviour, specifically:

b. Disengaged and declined to communicate effectively with The Complainant.

c. Failed to acknowledge, make eye contact or greet The Complainant.
d. Refused to use the same lift as The Complainant.
e. Refused to pass The Complainant in the hallway, instead turning into a cubicle to avoid
walking past her.
f. On or about 8 or 9 January 2013 when The Complainant greeted The Respondent with
‘good morning’ he responded with a ‘grrrr’ sound.
g. Made hidden observations of The Complainant whilst she was in the reception area
talking to the receptionist

Evidence

The Complainant
7.1 During her interview The Complainant claimed that The Respondent did not believe that she
had sufficient knowledge of SAP to do her job properly. After The Complainant completed a
Training Manual for the Transport Management Centre (TMC) project, Witness 1 advised
The Complainant that The Respondent believed the manual was substandard. The
Complainant stated:
“After that we hardly spoke because every time I got into meetings he didn't really want to
meet, had no eye contact, he wouldn't talk to me and I think he thought I was a bit of a
dumb-dumb so it was bad enough to get involved. If I find someone doesn't like me I just
walk away because it's not worth, you know, upsetting anyone because I am the
contractor.26
Like I was never invited to any meetings because I wasn't good enough. Like every other
organisation you're a business analyst, you're involved in the day-to-day, not day-to-day

26
Annexure 6 – Interview transcript – The Complainant – Q41

Confidential Investigation Report 13

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

but in a project meeting to see what's going on but I was never, ever involved in anything.
Because as soon as he'd see me he'd be like no thanks.”27

7.2 The Complainant claimed that the situation with The Respondent deteriorated after a PPD
project meeting in DATE in which Person 1 supported an idea of The Complainant’s, which
contradicted The Respondent’s opinion.
7.3 The Complainant provided examples of The Respondent’s behaviour towards her. The
Complainant stated:
“... like common courtesy of saying hello, he would try - I mean even downstairs on the
lobby, if I turned and I see him and there's room for him to get in the lift, he won't come in
the same lift as me. We'll pass in the corridor, if he sees me he turns off the cubicle, to
one of the cubicles. He was just, he just did not want to look at me at all.

And actually there was one instance where I talk to the receptionist, I mean I say hello to
the receptionist and one day he was checking up on me to see what I was doing in the
reception area and he was looking through the glass thing to see me.

... you can look through the thing because we were just mucking, we weren't mucking
around like there was anything, we were just saying good morning and acting silly out in
the reception because you're like girls being silly and then we see these eyes looking at
us and I said: "Yes The Respondent?" And then he opened the door and he said nothing
and he just walked back in again. It was quite funny how that happened. It was like he
was watching to see what I was doing.”28
7.4 The Complainant stated that on DATE she crossed paths with The Respondent at about
10.30am and greeted him with ‘good morning’. The Complainant claimed that The
Respondent responded with a ‘grrrr’ sound.29 The Complainant also stated that she believed
The Respondent purposefully did not greet her or make eye contact with her for some time.

Witness 1
7.5 During his interview Witness 1 stated that observed behaviour by The Respondent towards
The Complainant that he believed was inappropriate. Witness 1 stated:
“Once he had extracted or compiled the information that he deemed to be appropriate, the
conversations and interactions with The Complainant dropped off considerably. In a
professional sense, I would consider that exclusion and that exclusion led to re-work, it led
to I suppose lower work productivity and I had to actively work around that to
counterbalance the effects of those.
So from my personal perspective, I believe that to be an unprofessional situation.”30
7.6 Witness 1 also believed that The Respondent changed work activities with minimal notice to
test The Complainant. Witness 1 stated:
“I would go so far as to say he was almost seeing if it would fail so that he could have
some points substantiated about ineffectiveness, inability and I suppose inadequacy to
execute the role.”31

Response provided by < Respondent >

7.7 The Respondent denied the conduct outlined in allegation1, parts b, c, d, e, f and g.

27
Annexure 6 – Interview transcript – The Complainant – Q42
28
Annexure 6 – Interview transcript – The Complainant – Q49 - 51
29
Annexure 6 – Interview transcript – The Complainant – Q57
30
Annexure 7 – Interview transcript – Witness 1 – Q108
31
Annexure 7 – Interview transcript – Witness 1 – Q108

Confidential Investigation Report 14

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

7.8 Specifically in relation to disengaging and declining to communicate effectively with The
Complainant, The Respondent wrote:

“I was not directly working on the PPD activity that she was working on, nor was I working
on any other common projects with The Complainant.

The Complainant was supervised by Witness 1 and was working on a specific activity.

I am not The Complainant’s direct supervisor, and any communication from me would
necessarily be through her direct supervisor.

All communications that I have had with The Complainant were on a professional
basis.”32

7.9 During his interview The Respondent stated that his role did not necessitate daily contact or
communication with The Complainant. However if he saw The Complainant at work he would
acknowledge her or answer a question if she asked him directly. The Respondent denied
that he failed to make eye contact with The Complainant.
7.10 In relation to refusing to use the same lift as The Complainant, The Respondent stated that
this allegation was “spurious”.33
7.11 During his interview The Respondent explained that if there were a group of people waiting
for a lift he would naturally wait for another lift. The Respondent stated:
“Why would you want to get onto a lift that has a dozen people on it? Why would you want
to do that? I don’t do that.”34

7.12 In relation to refusing to pass The Complainant in the hallway, instead turning into a cubicle
to avoid walking past her, The Respondent stated in his interview:
“Again, I think she’s a little bit sensitive. If someone turns and walks into a bay, there are
approximately 12 bays here on Level 6, there’s approximately 100 staff. I would have
reasons to be in any one of those eight, nine, 10 bays to go in and talk to people. That’s
what I do. I talk to people. In the four to five months I would have had probably
interactions with about 70 per cent on level 6. I certainly go into bays and have
discussions with people.”35

7.13 In relation to greeting The Complainant with a ‘grrrrr’ sound, The Respondent wrote:
“I have not made a ‘grrr’ sound in response to someone saying ‘good morning’ to me.

Over the last several months I have had a persistent dry throat and mouth. The
Complainant may have heard me clearing my throat. I can provide medical
documentation and other evidence (if required).

In my view this is a spurious and vexatious allegation.”36

7.14 In relation to making hidden observations of The Complainant whilst she was in the reception
area, The Respondent wrote:
“I have never made ‘hidden observations’ on anybody.
32
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent
33
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent
34
Annexure 16 – Interview transcript – The Respondent – Q91
35
Annexure 16 – Interview transcript – The Respondent – Q93
36
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent

Confidential Investigation Report 15

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

I must pass through the reception area when entering and leaving the offices on level 6.

I have also from time to time gone to the reception area and stayed in the reception area
on level 6, for example waiting for visitors, or waiting for other staff members.

I had a problem with my landline phone over this period of time and would regularly attend
and wait in the reception area for visitors that I am meeting with.

To have been in the general reception area at the same time as The Complainant and to
have inadvertently or accidently observed The Complainant in a conversation with the
receptionist, in my view, does not constitute misconduct.”37

Analysis

7.15 The evidence indicates that The Complainant believed that her working relationship with The
Respondent deteriorated in around DATE, after Person 1 supported one of her ideas, which
contradicted The Respondent’s position on that issue.
7.16 Although The Respondent believed that all communications he had with The Complainant
were on a professional basis, he admitted that his role did not involve daily contact with The
Complainant, as he was not her supervisor and was not directly working on any common
projects.
7.17 With respect to part b, it is accepted that The Complainant may have felt that The
Respondent disengaged and declined to communicate effectively with her. However, The
Respondent denied this. Although Witness 1 also believed the conversations and
interactions between The Respondent and The Complainant decreased considerably, neither
of them could offer details of specific incidents to illustrate how and when this occurred. The
Complainant and The Respondent gave conflicting evidence on this issue. There is no
corroborating evidence to support either version. Accordingly there is insufficient evidence to
determine whether The Respondent behaved inappropriately.
7.18 With respect to part c, it is accepted that The Complainant may have felt that The
Respondent failed to acknowledge, make eye contact or greet her. However, again The
Respondent denied this. There is currently no corroborating evidence to support either The
Complainant or The Respondent’s evidence. Accordingly there is insufficient evidence to
determine whether The Respondent behaved inappropriately.
7.19 With respect to part d, it is accepted that The Complainant may have felt that The
Respondent refused to use the same lift as her. However, The Respondent denied this is the
case, citing his normal practice of waiting for an empty lift. There is currently no corroborating
evidence to support either The Complainant or The Respondent’s evidence. Accordingly
there is insufficient evidence to determine whether The Respondent behaved inappropriately.
7.20 With respect to part e, it is accepted that The Complainant may have felt that The
Respondent refused to pass her in the hallway instead turning into a cubicle to avoid walking
past her. However, The Respondent denied this and claimed that he often entered cubicles
to have discussions with people. There is currently no corroborating evidence to support
either The Complainant or The Respondent’s evidence. Accordingly there is insufficient
evidence to determine whether The Respondent behaved inappropriately.
7.21 With respect to part f, it is accepted that The Complainant believed that The Respondent
responded to her greeting with a ‘grrrr’ sound. However The Respondent has denied this is
the case although he believed that he might have cleared his throat from a persistent dry
throat and mouth. There is currently no corroborating evidence to support either The

37
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent

Confidential Investigation Report 16

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

Complainant’s or The Respondent’s evidence. Accordingly there is insufficient evidence to

determine whether The Respondent behaved inappropriately.
7.22 With respect to part g, it is accepted that The Complainant believed that The Respondent
made hidden observations of her in the reception area when talking to the receptionist.
However, The Respondent has denied this is the case. In the absence of corroborating
evidence from the receptionist, Person 3, there is no corroborating evidence to support either
The Complainant’s or The Respondent version. Accordingly there is insufficient evidence to
determine whether The Respondent behaved inappropriately.
7.23 After consideration of the information provided by The Complainant, and The Respondent,
there is insufficient evidence to establish that The Respondent’s behaviour towards The
Complainant in the circumstances described in allegations 1b to g, amounted to bullying or
harassment or was otherwise disrespectful under the <Organisation> Code of Conduct or the
<Organisation> Harassment, Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy.

Finding

7.24 On the balance of probabilities these allegations, parts b to g inclusive, are not substantiated
due to insufficient evidence.

8. Allegation 1, part h

It is alleged that between DATE and DATE whilst employed by <ORGANISATION> The
Respondent engaged in inappropriate workplace behaviour, specifically:

a. Whilst The Complainant and Witness 3 were working to rectify a problem with the PPD
project The Respondent declined to open the relevant periods in SAP and ‘sniggered’ at
them.

Evidence

The Complainant
8.1 During her interview The Complainant stated:
“I think he was always watching to see what I was doing in the sense that actually with the
PPD project that I worked on there was one instance where things went wrong because
something was done back to front and I was on the other side trying to explain and he
turned around, Witness 1 was there and so was Raquel because we all worked together
on this project and we saw him looking and sniggering at us. So it was just the whole plot
to try and bring the project team down. It was a consolidated effort to get rid of three
people in that team.

Yes, we were talking to fix the problem up and we obviously needed The Respondent to
open up the periods to do everything in the SAP system, but he knew that and he would
always do that, but he was watching us struggle to get this thing done.”38

Witness 3
8.2 During her interview Witness 3 stated that she was aware there was a problem between The
Complainant and The Respondent that was related to their knowledge of the SAP. Witness 3
believed that The Respondent saw The Complainant as a threat and he had articulated that
there was no need for the Project Team.
38
Annexure 6 – Interview transcript – The Complainant – Q60 & 61

Confidential Investigation Report 17

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

8.3 Witness 3 claimed that there were a number of problems with the PPD project and the team
was often criticized by The Respondent. Witness 3 believed there was a lack of
communication from The Respondent in relation to providing guidance for tasks or activities.
Rather The Respondent would wait until the task was completed and then advise them that it
was not right. This would mean that The Complainant would have to back track to correct
the errors.
8.4 On one occasion Witness 3 recalled that she worked with Witness 1 and The Complainant on
some journals which were required to be uploaded to SAP. The Respondent was required to
approve the journal. Witness 3 stated:
“I went to him, Witness 1 and The Complainant had already left for the day and I was just
the one trying to co-ordinate that with another person who was doing the upload of the
file. And I went to him and he didn’t even want to open the file and then he said, “What’s
this? What’s this here?” and there was a problem because we couldn’t open the file and
so he said, “You don’t know what you’re doing?””39

8.5 Witness 3 stated that she telephoned The Complainant and advised her that The
Respondent had refused to open the file. Witness 3 also advised Witness 2 and the task
was not completed at that time.
8.6 Witness 3 was not able to provide any information in relation to The Respondent sniggering
at them or watching The Complainant struggle to complete this task.

Witness 1
8.7 During his interview Witness 1 stated that although he believed there were problems with the
PPD project and The Respondent’s failure to fully cooperate and collaborate with the Project
Team, he did not recall an incident where The Respondent sniggered at The Complainant.

Witness 4
8.8 Witness 4 is a Senior Business Analyst who reports directly to The Respondent. During her
interview Witness 4 explained that it was part of her role to unlock specific ledger periods in
SAP when she had received a written request to do so. Witness 4 also stated that The
Respondent and a number of other staff had access to unlock ledger periods.
8.9 Witness 4 recalled that during the PPD project, she received a number of written requests
from the Project Team to open specific periods. Witness 4 stated that it was rare that the
ledger was reopened, however with the PPD project this occurred on a number of occasions.
Witness 4 confirmed that there is an audit trail of each occasion that the ledger was opened
and closed. This audit would reveal who was responsible.
8.10 On occasions where Witness 4 believed any request was unusual or not necessary she
could refer the request to The Respondent for approval. Witness 4 also stated that the
normal requests made by email were also copied to The Respondent so that he was aware
that Witness 4 was attending to these requests.
8.11 Specifically in relation to the PPD project Witness 4 advised by email on 13 March 2013, that
she had received five requests to open ledger periods from the Project Team which included
Witness 1, The Complainant and Witness 3. Witness 4 was unable to recall whether she
forwarded any of these requests to The Respondent for approval, however none of the
requests were denied.40

39
Annexure 9 – Interview transcript – Witness 3 – Q44
40
Annexure 19 – Information email - Witness 4

Confidential Investigation Report 18

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

Response provided by < Respondent >

8.12 The Respondent denied this allegation. In his written response The Respondent wrote:
“I don’t know what a snigger is and strongly deny this allegation. I cannot recall this
particular incident.

Declining to open the accounting periods does not constitute misconduct.

Opening and closing of the periods is an important process and requires internal control.
It is a task that is solely allocated to Witness 4.

The ledgers are opened and closed by Witness 4 and this is routinely done by way of an
email notification (requests are documented for verification and audit purposes).

This protocol allows the Financial Systems Manager to act in a supervisory role, provides
segregation of duties control and more importantly evidentiary documentation.

The Complainant and Witness 1 spent a significant amount of time rectifying serious
problems creating a significant additional workload for other staff.

Requests for the ledgers to be opened and closed were received continuously due to a
lack of superior knowledge of the accounting systems on the part of Witness 1 1 and The
Complainant. All of those requests went to Witness 4.”41

Analysis
8.13 It is apparent that there were a number of problems that occurred whilst the Project team
worked on the PPD project. The Complainant outlined one incident that involved Witness 1
and Witness 3 in which The Respondent declined to open the relevant periods in SAP and
sniggered at them. The Respondent denied this behaviour and claimed he did not know
what a snigger was.
8.14 Although Witness 3 outlined one occasion where The Respondent refused to open a file in
SAP, The Complainant and Witness 1 were not present at the time. Neither Witness 3 nor
Witness 1 was able to recall an incident in which The Respondent had sniggered at them.
8.15 The information provided by Witness 4 supported that of The Respondent in relation to the
responsibility of Witness 4 to open and close ledgers in SAP. It is accepted that all requests
processed by Witness 4 were provided in writing and that no requests in relation to the PPD
project were declined.
8.16 On consideration of the information provided by The Complainant, Witness 3, Witness 1,
Witness 4 and The Respondent, there is insufficient evidence to establish that The
Respondent declined to open relevant periods in SAP and sniggered at The Complainant.
Accordingly there is insufficient evidence to establish that The Respondent engaged in
conduct amounting to bullying or harassment or that was otherwise disrespectful under the
<Organisation> Code of Conduct or the <Organisation> Harassment, Discrimination and
Workplace Bullying Policy.

Finding
8.17 On the balance of probabilities this allegation is not substantiated.

41
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent

Confidential Investigation Report 19

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

9. Allegation 1, part i

It is alleged that between DATE and DATE whilst employed by <ORGANISATION> The
Respondent engaged in inappropriate workplace behaviour, specifically:

i) On DATE, The Respondent refused to attend a meeting that he had organised with
Person 2 of COMPANY and Witness 1 because The Complainant was in attendance at
the meeting.

Evidence

The Complainant
9.1 On DATE, Witness 1 advised The Complainant that he would like her to attend a meeting
that The Respondent had organised on DATE with a COMPANY representative, Person 2.
The Complainant believed this meeting related to project streamlining in SAP which was the
Project Team’s charter and Witness 1’s responsibility.
9.2 The Complainant stated that she was aware that Witness 1 did not advise The Respondent
prior to the meeting that she would be attending.
9.3 About 3pm The Complainant observed The Respondent in the meeting room with Person 2
as she walked into the room behind Witness 1. The Complainant stated:
“The Respondent saw my face and he said: "Witness 1, I need to speak to you."

The Respondent got out from the room and so did Witness 1 so I just went back and sat
at my desk.”42

9.4 The Complainant stated that The Respondent left Person 2 in the meeting room alone and
went with Witness 1 to the quiet room which was near The Complainant’s workstation. The
Complainant went back to her desk. She stated:
“I was feeling really horrible because I knew there was more issues and I could hear in
there.

I was feeling quite, you know, flustered, scared, I didn't know, I was just feeling all these
thousands of butterflies in my stomach and I could hear him saying: "If she's in there I'm
not going to be there."43
9.5 After a short time Witness 1 came to her workstation and invited The Complainant to attend
the meeting with him which she did. Witness 1 advised The Complainant and Person 2 that
The Respondent would not be attending.
9.6 Whilst The Respondent and Witness 1 were in the quiet room, The Complainant could hear
some of their conversation and she believed Witness 1 was getting upset during this
conversation.
9.7 In her complaint email to Person 1, The Complainant wrote:
“The fact that I heard The Respondent say “if The Complainant is in the meeting then I
won’t be there” meant the others would have heard. I was embarrassed and belittled by
those remarks.”44
9.8 As a result The Complainant informed Witness 1 that she was going to resign from her
position which she did by way of email to Witness 1 the next day. The Complainant claimed
she resigned because she was upset and unhappy with the way The Respondent treated her
42
Annexure 6 – Interview transcript – The Complainant – Q73
43
Annexure 6 – Interview transcript – The Complainant – Q76
44
Annexure 5 – Complaint email - The Complainant

Confidential Investigation Report 20

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

in relation to this meeting and she believed that The Respondent had targeted her and his
behaviour towards her leading up to this day was inappropriate.
9.9 In her complaint letter to The Complainant also wrote:
“During my entire working career I have never felt so humiliated and downtrodden than
what I experienced during this period.

I felt there has been a consistent pattern of intimidation and humiliation by The
Respondent towards me that tainted my reputation and undermined my credibility.

As a result I became withdrawn and frightened to voice my opinion and it is my firm belief
that The Respondent was trying to destroy my reputation at <ORGANISATION> amongst
my colleagues and peers.”45

Witness 1

9.10 During his interview Witness 1 explained that one initiative for DATE was a standardisation
effort in the SAP module called Project Systems. In order to commence that process
Witness 1 needed to have a discussion with third part provider COMPANY. However,
Witness 1 was unable to confirm a date for the meeting prior to Christmas and his annual
leave commitments in January.
9.11 Witness 1 provided a copy of an email that he sent to Person 2 on DATE that confirmed
Witness 1 was seeking to schedule a meeting with Person 2 after DATE.46
9.12 The email correspondence also indicated that The Respondent forwarded Witness 1’s email
request to another COMPANY representative where an agenda and time frame was
discussed. On DATE, Person 2 sent a reply email to The Respondent in which he nominated
the DATE or DATE as the initial meeting date. Witness 1, who was on leave until DATE, was
copied into this email.
9.13 Witness 1 also provided a Finance and Revenue Program of Work document which indicated
that the activity listed as ‘Improvements in SAP Project Systems’ was the responsibility of the
Project Manager Finance and Revenue.47
9.14 During his interview Witness 1 stated that whilst he was on leave from DATE until DATE, The
Respondent took over the meeting administration and arranged for the meeting to take place
on DATE. Witness 1 stated that he did not ask The Respondent to take over arrangements
for this meeting, although he was appreciative that the meeting was able to be organised
during his absence.
9.15 Witness 1 believed that the staff who should attend that meeting were those that would be
participating in the activity through its course. Witness 1 stated that it would be appropriate
for himself as Project Manager and The Complainant as Senior Business Analyst with SAP
experience to be in attendance as well as The Respondent as Finance Manager and any
staff who he would consider appropriate.
9.16 About an hour before the meeting, Witness 1 asked The Complainant if she was available to
attend the meeting with him and she confirmed to him that she was available. As he
approached the meeting room Witness 1 saw that The Respondent was talking to Person 2.
Witness 1 stated:
“So at the commencement of the meeting, The Complainant proceeded into the meeting
room together. The Respondent raised his finger in a manner that indicated no and which
was a finger moving left to right.
45
Annexure 5 – Complaint email - The Complainant
46
Annexure 8d – Email to Person 2 - Witness 1
47
Annexure 8e – Program of Work - Witness 1

Confidential Investigation Report 21

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

To me, explicitly to me. He stood up out of his chair, he then walked over to me and he
then stated that this meeting is not for The Complainant and I said, “I would like her to
attend.” He then proceeded further around from the meeting room, away from the
meeting room. He stated the words, “Stop playing fucking games.” I said, “I’m sorry, The
Respondent. Please explain?”48

9.17 Witness 1 then followed The Respondent to another meeting room where The Respondent
made further comments about The Complainant not attending the meeting. Witness 1
stated:
“He, again, stated, “Stop playing fucking games. I did not invite her. She’s not attending.
If she attends, I am not. Witness 1, what is your decision?” I restated the benefit of The
Complainant attending. He, to a large extent, pushed past that and said, “What’s your
decision?” I said that she’s attending. He then stormed out of that meeting room,
returned to his desk. Going back to the meeting room for me was via his desk. I walked
past his desk, clarified if he will be attending. He didn’t respond to me. I proceeded then
to the meeting room and continued with the meeting with The Complainant with the
consultant.”49
9.18 Witness 1 claimed that The Respondent’s initial comments and his gesticulation occurred in
the presence of Person 2 and The Complainant. Although The Complainant may not have
seen The Respondent wave his finger, he certainly would have heard his comments.
9.19 Witness 1 also stated that although The Respondent did not raise his voice there was a level
and tone of frustration and his response was unwarranted and inappropriate. Witness 1
believed that he remained calm and did not raise his voice or swear in response.
9.20 After the meeting, Witness 1 spoke to The Complainant who was upset and appalled by The
Respondent’s behaviour and indicated that she wanted to resign. Witness 1 advised The
Complainant to consider her actions overnight. However, the next day she sent Witness 1 an
email of resignation.50 Witness 1 also spoke to Witness 5, Human Resources and Business
Services after the meeting and advised her of the incident.
9.21 Witness 1 claimed that The Respondent did not tell him prior to the meeting that he did not
want The Complainant to attend.

Witness 4
9.22 During her interview Witness 4 stated that she was invited to the meeting on DATE by The
Respondent. Witness 4 claimed that before the meeting started she was sitting at her desk
when she saw The Respondent and Witness 1 leave the meeting room and go to the quiet
room. Witness 4 did not hear any conversation between them and she did not know where
Person 2 was at that time.
9.23 A short time later Witness 4 saw The Respondent walk to the reception area. When The
Respondent returned he told Witness 4 that she was no longer required to attend the
meeting. Witness 4 stated that she was unaware of what occurred between The Respondent
and Witness 1.

Witness 5
9.24 Witness 5 prepared a file note from conversations she had with Witness 1 on DATE and with
The Respondent on DATE.51 The file note reads:

48
Annexure 7 – Interview transcript – Witness 1 – Q64 & 65
49
Annexure 7 – Interview transcript – Witness 1 – Q64 & 65
50
Annexure 3 – Resignation email - The Complainant
51
Annexure 4 – File note - Witness 5

Confidential Investigation Report 22

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

“(Per JC recount) The Respondent had organised a meeting for him and Witness 4 to
attend together with COMPANY. The meeting invite was extended to XX due to his
position of project manager. He deliberately left YY off invite as she was not needed or
welcome in this meeting or project.”52
9.25 Witness 5 also recorded the comment:
“(Per The Respondent account) Witness 1 brought The Complainant to meeting. The
Respondent pulled Witness 1 aside in front of Company and explained The Complainant
is not required and not to attend. Witness 1 insisted the complainant would attend the
meeting. The respondent told Witness 1 “that he is playing games” and “he is not having
any of the game playing”. The Respondent also told Witness 1 to “fuck off then”. (EN: I
believe from memory the latter was not in earshot of COMPANY).”53

9.26 On DATE, Witness 5 signed the file note to confirm that it was a correct recollection of the
information she was provided at the time of the incident.

Response provided by < Respondent >

9.27 The Respondent vehemently denied this allegation. In his written response The Respondent
wrote:
“I did not attend the meeting because of a persistent and ongoing argument with Witness
1 just prior to the meeting, not because The Complainant was possibly going to attend the
meeting.

Witness 1’s behaviour is an example of the ongoing harassment that I have been
subjected to over the last few months.

At the time I felt that I needed to leave level 6 because I felt this was an unsafe
environment.”54
9.28 The Respondent claimed that he had arranged the meeting with Person 2 to discuss the
current and future implementation of the SAP Project Systems application. He invited
Witness 1 and Witness 4 to the meeting several days in advance. In relation to The
Complainant, The Respondent wrote:
“I did not envisage a need to have The Complainant in the meeting because it is my
opinion that she is not suitably qualified.

At no time prior to the DATE did Witness 1 raise with me any concerns that he may have
had or the possibility of The Complainant attending the meeting.”55

9.29 Just prior to the meeting, The Respondent saw that Witness 1 was with The Complainant
and he claimed that he asked Witness 1 discreetly to inform The Complainant that she was
not required for this meeting. The Respondent stated:
“Witness 1 became quite argumentative and obstinate and demanded that she be
included in the meeting. I then made a request to discuss this in the quiet room i.e. not in
the public view.

52
Annexure 4 – File note – Witness 5
53
Annexure 4 – File note - Witness 5
54
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent
55
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent

Confidential Investigation Report 23

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

We continued the discussion and I then left the quiet room and went outside because the
interaction with Witness 1 had been quite stressful.”56
9.30 During his interview Witness 1 confirmed that although he and Witness 1 argued about The
Complainant’s presence at the meeting, it was the fact that they had argued and not the
subject matter or result of the argument that was the significant reason why he declined to
attend the meeting.
9.31 The Respondent initially denied that he had organised this meeting on behalf of Witness 1
whilst Witness 1 was on leave. The Respondent then stated:

“Look, there might have been some indication along those lines but, at the end of the day,
it’s an activity that I’m responsible for.”57
9.32 When The Respondent was asked why he believed Witness 1 was not entitled to invite The
Complainant to the meeting, he stated:

“Look, it’s not about that. It’s about the protocols. If he had any concerns whether the
meeting had been resourced correctly, he could have come and discussed that with me
over that two-week period.

There was no reason to have that discussion three or four minutes before the meeting
was to begin. There was no reason to have that discussion in front of the senior
consultant from COMPANY. I personally found it quite embarrassing that he wished to
raise that at that particular time. I was particularly concerned about how obstinate he was
with his views.”58

9.33 The Respondent stated that had Witness 1 advised him earlier of the request for The
Complainant to attend he would have referred that request to Witness 2 to arbitrate on the
difference of opinion between him and Witness 1.

Analysis

9.34 It is accepted that The Respondent failed to attend a meeting on DATE with Person 2, which
he had previously organised to discuss the SAP Project Systems application.
9.35 The Respondent initially denied he had organised this meeting on behalf of Witness 1 whilst
Witness 1 was on leave. The evidence shows that Witness 1 was in fact responsible for
improvements in SAP Project Systems and initially sought this meeting with Person 2.
Witness 1’s assertions are supported by the Program of Work activity document and the
email request sent to Person 2 on DATE.
9.36 It is accepted that Witness 1 therefore had the authority to invite The Complainant to the
meeting and that Witness 1 had made a legitimate business decision to ask her to attend
based upon The Complainant’s expected participation in the project implementation and
ongoing operation.
9.37 The information provided by The Complainant and Witness 1 in respect to what occurred
when The Complainant approached the door of the meeting room in which The Respondent
was sitting, is consistent. It is apparent that The Respondent immediately took umbrage at
The Complainant’s attendance and indicated this to Witness 1 in the presence of Person 2.
The Respondent did not deny that he objected to The Complainant’s attendance at that
meeting front of Person 2. The evidence indicates that Witness 1 and The Respondent
56
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent
57
Annexure 16 – Interview transcript – The Respondent – Q160
58
Annexure 16 – Interview transcript – The Respondent – Q161 & 165

Confidential Investigation Report 24

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

continued to argue about The Complainant’s attendance in a quiet room located near The
Complainant’s desk. The Respondent spoke loud enough for The Complainant to hear him
say, “if The Complainant is in the meeting then I won’t be there”.
9.38 It is determined that The Complainant and possibly Person 2 heard The Respondent say that
he would not attend the meeting if The Complainant was present. It is accepted that she felt
embarrassed, belittled and humiliated as a result.
9.39 It is accepted that The Respondent made comments to Witness 5 the next day that “ He
deliberately left The Complainant off invite as she was not needed or welcome in this
meeting or project”. This evidence, contained in Witness 5’s file note and recorded by
Witness 5 after her discussion with The Respondent on DATE, is significant. It comes from a
reliable and independent source.
9.40 Despite The Respondent’s assertion that he failed to attend the meeting as a result of the
persistent and ongoing argument with Witness 1, the weight of evidence shows that he
decided not to attend the meeting because The Complainant would be in attendance,
contrary to his instruction.
9.41 After consideration of the information provided by The Complainant, Witness 1 and The
Respondent, there is sufficient evidence to establish that The Respondent refused to attend
a meeting that he had organised with Person 2 of COMPANY and Witness 1 because The
Complainant was in attendance at the meeting.
9.42 To determine whether this behaviour amounted to bullying under clause 3.9 of the
<Organisation> Code of Conduct and clause 5.2 of the <Organisation> Harassment,
Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy consideration is given as to whether the
behaviour exhibited by The Respondent during this single event is unwanted, creates a
hostile environment and would be considered offensive, intimidating, humiliating or
threatening by the individual to whom it is directed, or by others who have witnessed it.
9.43 There is sufficient evidence to establish that The Respondent’s conduct towards The
Complainant in these circumstances amounted to bullying or harassment under clause 3.9 of
the <Organisation> Code of Conduct and clause 5.2 of the <Organisation> Harassment,
Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy. His behaviour was unwanted and created a
hostile work environment. It was also offensive and humiliating for The Complainant to have
The Respondent express his views on the matter in front of an external supplier
representative and then to continue to express is views in a strident manner, albeit to another
person, but so loudly that The Complainant could hear what he was saying.
9.44 To determine whether this behaviour was disrespectful under clause 3.2 of the
<Organisation> Code of Conduct consideration is given as to whether the behaviour
exhibited by The Respondent towards The Complainant during this single event was fair,
consistent, and non-discriminatory with proper regard for her rights and obligations.
Consideration is also given as to whether he acted professionally.
9.45 There is sufficient evidence to establish that the conduct of The Respondent towards The
Complainant in these circumstances breached clause 3.2 of the <Organisation> Code of
Conduct. His conduct towards The Complainant during this event was unfair, inconsistent,
and discriminatory and he acted without proper regard for her rights and obligations. The
Respondent did not act professionally and his decisions and actions were not reasonable,
fair and appropriate in the circumstances.
9.46 By breaching clause 3.9 of the <Organisation> Code of Conduct, The Respondent has also
breached clause 3.1 (Responsibility to the State Government)

Finding
9.47 On the balance of probabilities this allegation is substantiated.

Confidential Investigation Report 25

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

10. Allegation 1, parts j and k

It is alleged that between DATE and DATE whilst employed <ORGANISATION> The Respondent
engaged in inappropriate workplace behaviour, specifically:

j. On DATE The Respondent sent an email to Witness 1 (Annexure 1) which contained

derogatory or demeaning comments about The Complainant including:

i. She spends all day on the telephone on personal calls

ii. She produces no output
iii. She has a very limited understanding of SAP
iv. She has a superficial understanding of the Projects manual
v. I don’t think there is any reason to have poor performing contractors in
Finance
vi. Frankly from my perspective, I think The Complainant’s contract should be
ended.
vii. I do not see a continuing role for The Complainant
viii. I’m certainly not interested in providing meetings for her to sit in.

k. Made threatening comments to Witness 1 in the same email referred to in allegation

part j above, including:

i. I don’t believe you are effectively supervising The Complainant

ii. Now I’m not sure who is actually in charge here but I’m a permanent
manager at TfNSW and you are a contractor.
iii. If I request something I expect you to cooperate. If you don’t want to
cooperate, then we have a problem.
iv. I think you have a different view on a few subjects now and so I’m coming to
the viewpoint that working with you is no longer productive.

Evidence

Witness 1

10.1 After the meeting with The Complainant and Person 2, Witness 1 discovered that The
Respondent had sent him an email at 5.04pm.59 The email contained the following
comments in relation to The Complainant:

 The Complainant spends all day on the phone on personal calls and produced no
output – has done for months.

 The Complainant has a limited understanding of SAP and has a superficial

understanding of the project module.

 I don’t think there is any reason to have poor performing contractors in Finance, where
resources are limited.

 Frankly from my perspective, I think The Complainant’s contract should be ended.

59
Annexure 8b – Email from The Respondent - Witness 1

Confidential Investigation Report 26

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

 I do not see a continuing role for The Complainant and I’m certainly not interested in
providing meetings for her to sit in.

10.2 That email also contained the following comments made by The Respondent in relation to
Witness 1:

 I don’t believe you are effectively supervising The Complainant and I know there is no
output (too busy on the phone among other things)

 Now I’m not sure who is actually in charge here but I’m a permanent manager at
<ORGANISATION> and you are a contractor.

 If I request something I expect you to cooperate. If you don’t want to cooperate - then
we have a problem.

 I think you have a different view on a few subjects now and so I’m coming to the
viewpoint that working with you is no longer productive.

10.3 When he read the email, Witness 1 stated that he was disappointed and felt there was no
point in responding to The Respondent. The next day Witness 1 sent an email of complaint
about The Respondent’s comments to Witness 2 60 who was on leave at the time. Witness 1
then reported it to Person 1 on DATE.61
10.4 In relation to The Respondent’s comment about The Complainant spending all day on
personal telephone calls, Witness 1 believed this was a false statement and he was not
aware that The Respondent had been making any observations of The Complainant at work.
10.5 Witness 1 stated this was the first time that The Respondent had told him that The
Complainant’s contract should end, although he had previously intimated that The
Complainant was ineffectual and inappropriate for the organization. Witness 1 confirmed that
notwithstanding The Respondent’s opinion, he was satisfied with The Complainant’s work
performance. Witness 1 stated:
“Absolutely. So much so that if I was somewhere else and I needed SAP experience, I
would be requesting her in again as well. I would actively go and find where she’s
working and try and get her on board. Those positions are also echoed by senior
management as well.”62
10.6 In relation to the email comments about Witness 1’s ineffective supervision of The
Complainant, The Respondent had inferred previously that Witness 1 was not effectively
managing the contractors, which included The Complainant. However The Respondent had
not made a direct statement to this effect prior to sending his email.
10.7 Witness 1 stated that he was ‘abhorred’ by the comments in The Respondent’s email and felt
threatened by his comments. Witness 1 stated:
“I just feel threatened. The fact that if another contractor said it to me, if a permanent
person said it to another permanent person higher or lower, it’s a threatening statement. I
think he’s also discriminatory, if I could go that far because he’s differentiating between a
person of permanent status from someone who is a person that is not a permanent status,
a contractor. I have responsibilities to deliver work and outcomes as much as he does.
He is deliberately obstructing my achievement of my goals and my outcomes. He has

60
Annexure 8a – Email complaint - Witness 1
61
Annexure 8a – Email complaint - Witness 1
62
Annexure 7 – Interview transcript – Witness 1 – Q129

Confidential Investigation Report 27

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

caused what should be a relatively simple piece of work, to be protracted over a number
of months and he has wasted resources of the organisation. The Complainant has
resigned, there has been lost productivity. I now have to go and find additional
resources.”63

Witness 2

10.8 Witness 2 explained that The Respondent was not responsible for supervising or managing
The Complainant’s work. Rather The Respondent needed to understand The Complainant’s
SAP work so that he could operate and maintain it in the future. Initially, Witness 2 said that
there were no formal reporting lines on the project team in which The Complainant worked.
Rather The Complainant took instructions from Witness 1 on the tasks that had been
assigned to him. However, later in his interview, Witness 2 said that The Complainant
reported to Witness 1.64 Witness 2 also said The Respondent was responsible for raising his
concerns about The Complainant’s performance with either Witness 1, himself or Person 1
who would then investigate these concerns. The Respondent did not raise any formal
concerns with Witness 2 regarding The Complainant’s performance other than a verbal
comment just before Christmas when Witness 2 was about to go on leave. The Respondent
mentioned that in his opinion, The Complainant did not know as much about SAP as others.
65

10.9 Witness 2 explained that when Witness 1 joined <Organisation>, the project he was
contracted to work on was underway. There was no detailed plan for the project. Changes
had to be implemented rapidly. Witness 2 also explained that The Respondent had to
contribute to this project and became frustrated by the lack of proper project planning. The
Respondent was given little to no notice that he had to close his ledger system for half a day.
As The Respondent had ‘other things on his plate’ his requests were not always actioned as
and when Witness 1 required. In Witness 2’s opinion, it was for this reason that conflict
developed between The Respondent and Witness 1. Witness 2 observed conflict between
The Respondent and Witness 1 when he facilitated meetings which they both attended.66
10.10 Witness 2 was on leave from DATE to DATE.67

Response provided by < Respondent >

10.11 The Respondent confirmed he sent this email to Witness 1.
10.12 In relation to the comments he made about The Complainant, The Respondent denied that
the comments were derogatory or demeaning.
10.13 The Respondent responded specifically to each comment in his written response and during
his interview as follows:

 The Complainant spends all day on the phone on personal calls and produced no output
– has done for months.

10.14 In his written response, The Respondent stated that this was his viewpoint and opinion and it
was his observation that could be supported by a review of The Complainant’s telephone call
records during this time.

63
Annexure 7 – Interview transcript – Witness 1 – Q133
64
Annexure 11 – Interview transcript – Witness 2 – Q25; 37; 45
65
Annexure 11 – Interview transcript – Witness 2 – Qs49-50; 53; 61
66
Annexure 11 – Interview transcript – Witness 2 – Qs33-34; 51
67
Annexure 11 – Interview transcript – Witness 2 – Q 67

Confidential Investigation Report 28

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

10.15 During his interview The Respondent stated that he could hear The Complainant on the
telephone from his desk and on he saw her on the telephone when he was at Witness 4’s
desk. The Respondent did not make any record of his observations.
10.16 The Respondent also stated that he had reported his observations to Witness 1 and Witness
2.
10.17 In relation to The Complainant’s output, The Respondent wrote,

“I have reviewed emails from The Complainant including system logs and system
documents over the period DATE – DATE.

There has been no substantive output over those months.”68

10.18 The Respondent claimed that he had an interest in the Project Team’s output and wanted to
get an overview of what they were doing. The Respondent came to the viewpoint that The
Complainant was not producing any output.
10.19 The Respondent stated that whether The Complainant had a direct reporting line to him or
not was irrelevant and he was entitled to question her output. If he found that The
Complainant was underperforming he would be required to report it to Witness 1 or Witness
2.
 The Complainant has a limited understanding of SAP and has a superficial
understanding of the project module.
10.20 In his written response, The Respondent stated that this was his professional judgment and a
review of The Complainant’s resume would support his opinion.
10.21 During his interview The Respondent stated that his ten year experience with SAP and his
full appreciation of the system allowed him to understand what The Complainant understands
about the system.
10.22 The Respondent confirmed that he had not formally raised his concerns about The
Complainant’s lack of knowledge of SAP with Witness 2 or Witness 1.
 I don’t think there is any reason to have poor performing contractors in Finance,
where resources are limited.
10.23 The Respondent stated that this was his viewpoint.
10.24 During his interview The Respondent denied that his comment was demeaning or
derogatory: Frankly from my perspective, I think The Complainant’s contract should be
ended. The Respondent stated that in his opinion The Complainant was not suitably
qualified.
10.25 During his interview The Respondent stated that he did not mean that The Complainant’s
contract should end before its term, rather the contract should not be renewed.
10.26 The Respondent believed his opinion in relation to the contract renewal would have been
sought from Witness 2 at the time: I do not see a continuing role for The Complainant and
I’m certainly not interested in providing meetings for her to sit in.
10.27 The Respondent stated this comment was in relation to the meeting on DATE. The
Respondent wrote, “In my opinion The Complainant was not qualified for and her attendance
at this meeting was not required.”69
10.28 During his interview The Respondent explained that he did not need any attendees who
would not add meaningful value in a meeting and he did not need to invite The Complainant
68
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent
69
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent

Confidential Investigation Report 29

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

as he had invited Witness 4 as the Senior Business Analyst. The Respondent denied that
this comment was in reference to any future meeting.
10.29 In relation to the comments he made about Witness 1, The Respondent denied that the
comments were threatening.
10.30 The Respondent responded specifically to each comment about Witness 1 as follows: I don’t
believe you are effectively supervising The Complainant and I know there is no output (too
busy on the phone among other things)
10.31 In his written response, The Respondent stated this was his viewpoint and opinion which was
the formal expression of his professional judgment
10.32 During his interview The Respondent confirmed that he believed Witness 1 was not
supervising The Complainant effectively by his observations of her continually using the
telephone. He said, Now I’m not sure who is actually in charge here but I’m a permanent
manager at <ORGANISATION> and you are a contractor.
10.33 The Respondent stated that this was a true statement. The Respondent wrote,
“I’m a permanent staff member and a manager.
I manage financial and accounting systems.
My role is supported by a job description and is on the Organisational organisational
chart.
Witness 1 is a Contractor.”70
10.34 During his interview The Respondent stated that he was not employed to continually argue
different viewpoints about certain things and he expected more cooperation from someone
who was on a contract at <ORGANISATION>: If I request something I expect you to
cooperate. If you don’t want to cooperate - then we have a problem.
10.35 In his written response The Respondent wrote:
“It is my viewpoint that I manage financial and accounting systems for
<ORGANISATION> and if I make a request with respect to those responsibilities than I
expect cooperation.
If that cooperation is not provided then in my view there is a problem.”71
I think you have a different view on a few subjects now and so I’m coming to the
viewpoint that working with you is no longer productive.
10.36 In his written response The Respondent wrote:
“This is not a threatening comment and no threat was made.
It was put to me on DATE that I had threatened not to work with Witness 1. That is not
true.
The difference of views and the continually arguing was leading me to form the view
that working with Witness 1 was no longer going to be productive.”72

10.37 During his interview The Respondent stated that he did not mean that he was no longer
going to work with Witness 1, rather their relationship was no longer productive. The
Respondent claimed that he would be able to work with anyone, including Witness 1

70
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent
71
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent
72
Annexure 17 – Written response - The Respondent

Confidential Investigation Report 30

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

Analysis
10.38 It is evident that after The Respondent and Witness 1 argued about The Complainant’s
attendance at the meeting with Person 2, The Respondent sent an email to Witness 1 with a
number of comments. The email contained comments in relation to The Complainant and a
number of comments in relation to Witness 1.
10.39 The Respondent admits to sending this emailing to Witness 1 and making the comments
contained therein. However he denied that the comments were derogatory or demeaning
towards The Complainant or threatening towards Witness 1.
10.40 To determine whether this behaviour amounted to bullying under clause 3.9 of the
<Organisation> Code of Conduct and clause 5.2 of the <Organisation> Harassment,
Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy consideration is given as to whether The
Respondent’s conduct is ‘unwanted, creates a hostile environment and would be considered
offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening by the individual to whom it is directed, or
by others who have witnessed it’.
10.41 Although the evidence does not establish clear reporting lines for members of this project
team, on Witness 2 and The Respondent’s evidence, it is apparent that it fell within The
Respondent’s sphere of responsibility to comment on The Complainant’s performance to
Witness 1. Although The Respondent’s comments about The Complainant’s performance
were blunt, the comments were based on his observations of her work and on his
professional assessment of her understanding of SAP, a system in which he had expertise.
The Respondent communicated these comments via apparently appropriate channels. He
did not direct these comments to The Complainant herself. Although his comments could
have been couched in gentler terms, they were not unreasonable.
10.42 Accordingly, by commenting about The Complainant in this email, The Respondent did not
engage in conduct amounting to bullying or harassment or that was otherwise disrespectful
under the <Organisation> Code of Conduct or the <Organisation> Harassment,
Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy.
10.43 However, even though The Respondent stated that the comments that he made about
Witness 1 in the email to him were based on his observations and professional assessment,
when read with the remainder of the comments and in light of the conflict Witness 2 had
observed developing between The Respondent and Witness 1, the evidence indicates that
these particular comments were unprofessional, intimidating and threatening.
10.44 Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence to establish that The Respondent’s conduct towards
Witness 1 in these circumstances amounted to bullying or harassment under clause 3.9 of
the <Organisation> Code of Conduct and clause 5.2 of the <Organisation> Harassment,
Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy. The Respondent’s behaviour was unwanted
and created a hostile work environment. It was also offensive and humiliating for Witness 1.
10.45 To determine whether this behaviour was disrespectful under clause 3.2 of the
<Organisation> Code of Conduct consideration is given as to whether The Respondent’s
comments directed at Witness 1 in this email were reasonable, fair and appropriate to the
circumstances, with proper regard for Witness 1’s rights and obligations. Consideration is
also given as to whether The Respondent acted professionally and responsibly.
10.46 There is sufficient evidence to establish that The Respondent’s conduct towards Witness 1 in
these circumstances breached clause 3.2 of the <Organisation> Code of Conduct. The
Respondent did not act professionally and responsibly in that the conduct was unreasonable,
unfair and inappropriate without proper regard for Witness 1’s rights and obligations.
10.47 By breaching clause 3.9 of the <Organisation> Code of Conduct, The Respondent has also
breached clause 3.1 (Responsibility to the State Government)

Confidential Investigation Report 31

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

Finding
10.48 On the balance of probabilities this allegation is substantiated in relation to conduct directed
at Witness 1.

11. Recommendations

11.1 With respect to Allegation 1, parts a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h, it is recommended that no further

action be taken against The Respondent.
11.2 With respect to Allegation 1, parts I, j and k there is sufficient evidence to determine that The
Respondent has breached clauses 3.1, 3.2 and 3.9 of the <Organisation> Code of Conduct.
Accordingly further disciplinary action is warranted.

Submitted for consideration

[NAME]
Investigator
Organisation

12. Annexures

1. Letter of engagement

2. Terms of reference

3. Resignation of The Complainant – Email [DATE]

4. File Note prepared by Witness 5

5. Complaint email sent by The Complainant to Person 1 – [DATE]

6. Transcription of interview with The Complainant

7. Transcription of interview with Witness 1

8. Documents provided by Witness 1 including:

a. Email to Person 1 – Code of Conduct Matter

b. Email from The Respondent – The Complainant

c. Email from The Respondent – Resume request

d. Email to Person 2 – SAP PS Discussion

e. Finance and revenue – Program of Work

Confidential Investigation Report 32

[DATE]
 Investigation Report – <organisation name>- allegations against < Respondent >

f. Email from The Respondent – Meeting [DATE]

g. Email from The Respondent – SAP Task Plan for PPD

h. Diary of events prepared by Witness 1

9. Transcription of interview with Witness 3

10. Transcription of interview with Witness 4

11. Transcription of interview with Witness 2

12. Email notification – Person 3 declined interview

13. Letter of notification to The Respondent

14. Letter of allegations to The Respondent

15. Notice of response to allegations by The Respondent

16. Transcription of interview with The Respondent

17. Written response to allegations by The Respondent

18. Email request for information to Client Contact – [DATE]

19. Email of information from Witness 4 – [DATE]

20. Organisation Corporate Structure

21. Organisation Position Description – Manager Financial Systems

Confidential Investigation Report 33

[DATE]