Resources: Blog

FWC recognises importance of confidentiality in employer investigations

Blog
|

Confidentiality in investigations

Employers will make every effort to maintain confidentiality when it comes to employees who give evidence as part of an investigation. However, should a matter eventually end up before the Fair Work Commission (or similar tribunal) there is no guarantee that the confidentiality will be upheld.

Sharon Bowker; Annette Coombe; Stephen Zwarts v DP World Melbourne Limited t/a DP World; Maritime Union of Australia, The Victorian Branch and Others [2015] FWC 4542

Three DP World employees previously applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for stop bullying orders against their DP World colleagues who were also members of the Maritime Union of Australia.

The substantive proceedings were put on hold until FWC heard DP World’s application for an order to restrict the publication of documentation which had been prepared by DP World in relation to complaints that had been made by the three employees. The documentation included allegations about conduct in the workplace that had been raised in a confidential manner by some employees of DP World.

The three employees submitted that not having access to the documentation would be contrary to the principle of “open justice” and would contribute to the perception that DP World encourages a workplace culture of silence. It was also argued that there was an implied undertaking of confidentiality amongst the parties relating the information.

DP World argued that the information should not be published on the basis that the identity of the employees who participated in the investigations and the information they disclosed were not relevant to the current proceedings. Further, it was also submitted that if the documents and the information within were disclosed, there was a risk that disclosure could undermine both ongoing workplace investigations by DP World and also employee confidence in DP Wold’s investigation policies and procedures generally. In addition to these arguments, DP World argued that its workplace behaviour policy gave assurances of confidentiality to employees who participated in the investigation process.

The FWC agreed with DP World’s submissions that the documents should not be disclosed as the information they contained was provided in confidence by employees who were not party to the proceedings. The FWC stated that to disclose the documents may undermine employee confidence in DP World’s policy and investigation processes and place those employees at risk of the same bullying behaviour as alleged by the three employees.

Accordingly, a confidentiality order was made to restrict the disclosure of the documents.

Employers will make every effort to maintain confidentiality when it comes to employees who give evidence as part of an investigation. However, should a matter eventually end up before FWC (or similar tribunal) there is no guarantee that the confidentiality will be upheld. To try and maintain confidentiality employers should try to be in a position to be able to show:

  • The importance of maintaining confidentiality was specified to all participants involved in an investigation.
  • The degree of relevance the sought after information has in relation to the matter before FWC (or similar tribunal).
  • The negative impact on the workforce in terms of employees feeling uncomfortable or scared to come forward with information if confidentiality is not upheld.
  • The negative impact on the employer’s ability to investigate complaints/allegations in the absence of employees providing information due to the lack of confidentiality.
  • The existence of any legal privilege over the information.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.

Read more...

What is the difference between confidential information and “know-how”?

No way, know how

During the course of the employment relationship, employees will inevitably gain knowledge or be exposed to information about the employer’s business that is considered confidential to its operations and which the employer does not want to be put out into the public domain.

Read more...

FWC upholds dismissal of an employee who repeatedly and deliberately accessed customer’s confidential information without authorisation

Celebrity search

During the course of their employment, employees may have access to confidential information which belongs to their employer. This information may be in the form of personal information provided by customers and is therefore sensitive in nature.

Read more...

Commission finds mask mandate to be a lawful and reasonable direction

Mask up

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.

Read more...

Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.

Read more...

Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.