WEBVTT 00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:54.000 Okay, I reckon we give it a go now. All right, hello everyone and welcome. Thanks for joining us at today's webinar, the safest approach managing Psychosocial Risk in Workplace Investigations. As you know, this is a topic that's very close and dear to my heart 00:00:54.000 --> 00:01:15.000 My name is Jodie Fox, for those of you who don't know me, I'm a director here at WorkLogic. As I'm meeting with you all here today from our office in Melbourne, traditionally known as Naan, and that's the land of the Wurundjeri people, and the Wurundjeri people are one of five Aboriginal clans that make up the Kulin Nation Alliance who shared common dreaming laws 00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:31.000 And before turning the sky into a star, the eagle Bunjil taught the Kulin people how to hunt, use tools, and look after land. And for First Nations people, this country has always been a place of teaching, learning, knowledge sharing, and it continues here today. So 00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:48.000 Today, I wanted to acknowledge and pay my respects to First Nations Elders past and present, and to celebrate connection and ongoing connection to land, water, communities of Australia. I also wanted to extend acknowledgement and my respect to the traditional custodians of the various lands 00:01:48.000 --> 00:01:53.000 On which we're all attending today, and to many First Nations people participating in this meeting 00:01:53.000 --> 00:02:05.000 If this is your first introduction to work logic, welcome. I can see that there's a lot of names that are familiar as well. We're a team of consultants who work with employers to minimise 00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:23.000 the risk and impact of inappropriate conduct in the workplace and to build health and safe and healthy workplace cultures. We do a number of different things. We do a lot of workplace investigations and investigations training. We do conflict resolutions, remediations, facilitated discussions, restorative process 00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:34.000 Conflict management coaching, reviews, workplace reviews and values workshops. We have an independence complaint line called Integrity Line, and we do training right across workplace behaviours 00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:52.000 We've also got a couple of published books on the subject. Those of you who are interested, we still do have our Fix Your Team, the tools you need to rebuild relationships, address conflict, and stop destructive behaviors. I know another of you have got a copy, but it's still available if you wanted to get a copy of that from our website, you can. 00:02:52.000 --> 00:02:56.000 So our latest 00:02:56.000 --> 00:03:11.000 website, our blog on our website, was all about making sure that we do workplace investigations in a way that respects psychosocial safety. And obviously, this is something that is… we've been really turning our minds to at WorkLogic for a number of years now 00:03:11.000 --> 00:03:24.000 And I'm joined here by two of our principal consultants, Tanya Hunter and Brooke Hall, who are going to help me talk you through all of the steps that we can take to try to minimise the risk of a workplace investigation. 00:03:24.000 --> 00:03:28.000 with Psychosocial safety in mind. Hi, Brooke. Hi, Tanya. 00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:30.000 Hello. 00:03:30.000 --> 00:03:32.000 Hi there, good afternoon, everyone. 00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:47.000 Excellent. All right, so we're talking about when we're talking to clients or conducting an investigation training, we do get a lot of questions around psychosocial risk 00:03:47.000 --> 00:04:05.000 And psychosocial safety in investigations, and that's given a number of the legislative changes that have been made, you know, and the harmonisation of workplace health and safety laws across all of the various different states, regulations dealing with psychosocial risk and how it is that we manage them 00:04:05.000 --> 00:04:19.000 One of the questions that keeps coming up is, well, you know, how do you deal with an investigation into behaviors that are causing psychosocial risk without adding to that psychosocial risk with the investigation itself, right? 00:04:19.000 --> 00:04:39.000 And look, given that an investigation does have serious consequences potentially for participants, the investigation itself puts the participants and the investigator, ourselves, under significant psychosocial strain in psychological strain in particular circumstances. 00:04:39.000 --> 00:04:56.000 What I was planning on doing in this webinar is sort of to really set out where do these hazards occur and how do we mitigate them without compromising procedural fairness and the integrity of the investigation, which is essential for us as workplace investigators, obviously. 00:04:56.000 --> 00:05:02.000 Tanya, have you changed how you've conducted workplace investigations, given that the changes to legislation? 00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:16.000 I haven't really changed the investigation process or even what I talk about in the training. I mean, I think what has happened because of this, it's more front of mind, and I'm definitely much more overt in addressing 00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:17.000 Yeah. 00:05:17.000 --> 00:05:30.000 How to minimize risks both in setting up and conducting the investigation. I think, basically, you know, sort of being very upfront with people about acknowledging, that the process itself can be stressful. Yeah, and 00:05:30.000 --> 00:05:32.000 talking about how we work through that. 00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:37.000 Yeah, yep. Yeah, I think that's right. I think that 00:05:37.000 --> 00:05:56.000 one of the things, hopefully, we'll come back to as a theme throughout this webinar is that providing procedural fairness actually goes a long way to providing psychosocial safety as well. But I do want to discuss some of the points at which participants might raise concerns about the investigation being safe 00:05:56.000 --> 00:06:06.000 For them to take part in. But Brooke, from your perspective, what's your starting point for a psychosocially safe investigation? 00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:21.000 The approach and it's, I mean, it's as you've alluded to before, we haven't really changed our approach to a whole heap, but it really just as Tan said, is focusing in on that, taking a trauma informed approach 00:06:21.000 --> 00:06:33.000 And making sure that all participants, regardless of whether they're the complainant, the respondent, witnesses, have safety choice and agency in relation, you know, at each step through the investigation. 00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:43.000 So at the beginning, for example, it's really important that we're building trust and transparent with all participants. I've been doing investigations for 00:06:43.000 --> 00:06:54.000 11 plus years. So it's easy to forget that most people aren't familiar with these processes, which let's face it, are inherently stressful. 00:06:54.000 --> 00:07:09.000 A lot of complainants, for example, are really surprised by the amount of detail that we need to get from them in our original interview. So they're surprised by… you don't want them to be surprised, but you know, talking with them 00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:25.000 Before the before the first interview, giving them a call, saying introducing yourself, introducing how the interview is going to go. It really just takes those stress levels down. But I guess the most important thing is 00:07:25.000 --> 00:07:45.000 communicating honestly and openly. So if you don't know the answer to a question, don't give them, the… you know, what they… what you think they want to hear. You've got to be really open enough. For example, there's no use saying that the investigation is going to be over in a week if you know it's going to take six 00:07:45.000 --> 00:07:58.000 Because that just adds to someone's trauma. So, making sure they know how to contact me. Make… we have a guide so that they understand the process from, go to woe. 00:07:58.000 --> 00:08:14.000 making sure that they can contact me with any questions, but being honest about how much information I can give them. But it's really just about that… that trauma-informed approach, which I think dovetails with WorkLogic's approach, as it's always been 00:08:14.000 --> 00:08:22.000 with, you know, trying to get the best information out of people in a… and you're going to do that if people feel 00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:40.000 comfortable and safe with you. 00:08:40.000 --> 00:08:41.000 Yes. 00:08:41.000 --> 00:08:45.000 Yeah, I think one of the I did an in-house PD at some point where someone was talking about credibility assessments. And one of the points you made, which I thought was an excellent one, was the most important credibility assessment is actually that of the investigator. It's the assessment of the investigator's credibility and their ability to conduct the process. 00:08:45.000 --> 00:08:46.000 Exactly. 00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:47.000 in a procedurally fair way 00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:48.000 Yeah. 00:08:48.000 --> 00:08:54.000 Tan, I mentioned that there are a number of points where participants might express concern about psychosocial risk 00:08:54.000 --> 00:08:55.000 Yeah. 00:08:55.000 --> 00:09:12.000 And I find that often one of these comes up, you know, when you're first discussing the complaint with the complainant. Complainants, when they're raising their concerns, may not want to raise issues in the first instance because, you know, or participate in an investigation because of, you know. 00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:27.000 They're concerned that there might be some sort of victimisation or retaliation from the respondent, or they're concerned, you know, just more broadly that it might be a bit of a career-limiting move. Often complainants might want to be anonymous 00:09:27.000 --> 00:09:32.000 What do we say about that? Is that a realistic position for them to take? 00:09:32.000 --> 00:09:37.000 I mean, I think that's where there's a real tension between 00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:52.000 that anonymity and procedural fairness. And generally, it's not realistic for people to remain anonymous for that level of specificity that you need for the allegations to be procedurally fair, generally you're going to have to give enough specifics that either 00:09:52.000 --> 00:09:58.000 would, you know, even if, practically speaking, the person isn't identified 00:09:58.000 --> 00:10:15.000 the respondent is going to know who it is. So I think you kind of try to address that with people by highlighting, you know, the protections that there are in the process, but also back to Brooke's point about making people comfortable with the process, you know, and letting people know if they have concerns at any point in the process 00:10:15.000 --> 00:10:35.000 They can, you know, come back to you and let you know that they have a concern about something that's happening. And keeping those lines of communication open and explaining, as well why I need, you know, you were talking about the level of specificity that we need from a complainant, that they're surprised by that sometimes, Brooke, but it's like letting people know why I need that information 00:10:35.000 --> 00:10:37.000 Yeah. 00:10:37.000 --> 00:10:44.000 How would you address the concerns those concerns that complainants raise? 00:10:44.000 --> 00:11:08.000 I think, again, it's all about being trauma-informed, honestly, and obviously, and being as honest and transparent as possible. And ensuring that someone feels safe. Now, that's on a slightly… not a sliding scale, that can move throughout the investigation. So, for some people actually handing off the process to someone else 00:11:08.000 --> 00:11:32.000 provides them a great deal of relief in that, you know. For others, it can, you know I did an investigation the other day, and it was a bullying investigation and 00:11:32.000 --> 00:11:33.000 Yeah 00:11:33.000 --> 00:11:42.000 you know, the complainant alleged that the respondent was constantly asking her questions. And so, here I am in an interview, constantly asking her questions. So, making sure and understanding the position of the… all the parties, and making and adjusting for that, and adjusting your approach to that 00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:55.000 you know, as Tan said, anonymity is is one of those things that I think you just have to be really transparent about. But making reasonable accommodations is something that 00:11:55.000 --> 00:11:59.000 We can also do, and it's really quite easy and 00:11:59.000 --> 00:12:09.000 Well, not necessarily easy. I mean, with a bit of thought, you know, reasonable accommodations can be made. 00:12:09.000 --> 00:12:20.000 You know, making sure, splitting the interview into two. 00:12:20.000 --> 00:12:21.000 Yep. 00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:42.000 Starting with an initial interview, and then if that gets too much, following up with questions. One of the things with multiple complainants, too, is that an employer might desire to do an employer-led 00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:43.000 You know, they should as well 00:12:43.000 --> 00:12:46.000 investigation, to investigate the concern, which means that that takes a little bit of pressure off the individual, because they don't feel like it's all on them. One of the things I do, actually, is 00:12:46.000 --> 00:13:00.000 when people are, I find people are stressed about… because people will stress about the whole process, right? And this kind of goes back to what you were talking about, Jodie, in terms of it's really important that us as investigators, 00:13:00.000 --> 00:13:04.000 have trust 00:13:04.000 --> 00:13:05.000 Yep. 00:13:05.000 --> 00:13:17.000 With the participants and have credibility with participants, because that if you can create that, that really helps. I tell the complainant, okay, this is your… your part in this investigation 00:13:17.000 --> 00:13:29.000 You're handing it over to me now. Do you know what I mean? So your job is to give me the best evidence, which is clear and reliable, and the best of your memory. That's the end of your job. 00:13:29.000 --> 00:13:58.000 Okay? And so and I think, and then, you know, if there are… they have concerns about their safety, we can certainly address them with the employer. But, you know, just transferring that responsibility, as it were. I think that sometimes that's a really helpful 00:13:58.000 --> 00:13:59.000 Yeah, yep 00:13:59.000 --> 00:14:01.000 It doesn't solve the problem, but it's a little sort of flick in some people's minds to sort of say, okay, you know, WorkLogics got this under control now. My part in it is done. That's just something that I do to 00:14:01.000 --> 00:14:04.000 Is effectively as a witness. Yeah 00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:05.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah 00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:07.000 Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. 00:14:07.000 --> 00:14:22.000 Yeah, I've got a question here about what happens when witnesses are adamant that they want to remain anonymous? I think then the organisation needs to make a decision. There are going to be some circumstances where it is possible to 00:14:22.000 --> 00:14:40.000 not have to name a witness. You know, if I've got a… something that happened in a large group situation, you know, and someone… I don't know how to go at someone in a large group situation, I don't necessarily need to inform the respondent who it is exactly that told, that gave the evidence. You know, the evidence is 00:14:40.000 --> 00:14:41.000 Yeah. 00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:42.000 This happened already then. 00:14:42.000 --> 00:14:53.000 But in a lot of circumstances, it may not be possible to put a procedurally fair allegation to a respondent where a complainant is wanting to remain anonymous. 00:14:53.000 --> 00:14:59.000 Yeah. 00:14:59.000 --> 00:15:00.000 Yeah. 00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:08.000 And in that case, then the organization needs to think about other options than an investigation. They need to think about, you know, just because the complainant is remaining anonymous doesn't mean that we just everything grinds to a halt and we can't do anything. There are a number of different ways 00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:28.000 to scheme that particular cat, and we might go down some pathways around reviews or around training, or around, you know, managerial expectations, around monitoring, all sorts of things that we can do, but probably not putting an allegation to a respondent that's not procedurally fair. 00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:37.000 Tom, do you have other comments about the ways in which we can help people feel that they do have a sense of agency in a workplace? 00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:46.000 Yeah, well, I think, you know, letting the person have a support person, the support person that they choose, obviously with 00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:57.000 Some caveats around that, not someone who's involved in the investigation, but it, like, if they want to have a union person, if they want to have, you know, a legal representative, those kind of things. I also think 00:15:57.000 --> 00:16:20.000 It's really important to provide that choice around when people want to be interviewed, how they want to do it, you know, do they want to meet remotely? Are they more comfortable? Like, they can be in their, you know, study at home with their support person sitting next to them, or their cat on their lap, or whatever makes them feel safer 00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:21.000 Yep. 00:16:21.000 --> 00:16:30.000 Or do they want to meet face-to-face? Because they're, you know, analog, more old school, and they like to meet people face-to-face. So I think that's one way, you know, asking people, how do you prefer to be communicated with? Do you want me to send you an email? Would you prefer that I call you 00:16:30.000 --> 00:16:46.000 Generally, if it's sensitive information, you know that I have to communicate to someone, I'd want to at least touch base with them before I do that and let them know it's coming. I think about, you know, complainants, giving them choice about where do you want to start with telling me that's your story 00:16:46.000 --> 00:17:01.000 And then, you know, going back and getting those details. And if I do have to ask questions that are around sensitive issues, you know, if it is something about it, like a sexual harassment matter or even a bullying matter, you know, letting people know 00:17:01.000 --> 00:17:14.000 I know that it can be difficult, you know to have to go through this. I don't want to re-traumatize you, but this is why I need the information. Again, it's that communication, isn't it, Brooke? Letting people know why I need, why I'm asking that question, making 00:17:14.000 --> 00:17:16.000 Oh, absolutely. Yeah. 00:17:16.000 --> 00:17:22.000 Yeah, making sure then if, you know, if people are getting upset, they can take a break or 00:17:22.000 --> 00:17:28.000 you know, if they need a break or a moment 00:17:28.000 --> 00:17:29.000 Yeah. 00:17:29.000 --> 00:17:49.000 together that thoughts, those kind of things, you know, and sort of pausing at that point and saying, do you need to have a moment, speak to your support person, whatever you need to do. All those things can help give people, you know, agency and feel like they've got some control over the process. And that 00:17:49.000 --> 00:17:50.000 Absolutely. Yeah 00:17:50.000 --> 00:17:57.000 That's true for everyone involved in the process. It's not just, you know, not just for the complainant. We do want to make sure that we're taking that approach to everybody that we are speaking to as part of the process, because it's… I mean, it's obviously pretty stressful to be a respondent, or even a witness, you know, witnesses sometimes 00:17:57.000 --> 00:17:59.000 Yeah, yeah. 00:17:59.000 --> 00:18:00.000 Yeah, that's right. 00:18:00.000 --> 00:18:04.000 Why am I? Like, I don't even know what it's about, what are you asking me for? Yeah 00:18:04.000 --> 00:18:10.000 Yeah, exactly. 00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:12.000 Yeah 00:18:12.000 --> 00:18:13.000 Yeah. 00:18:13.000 --> 00:18:16.000 Yeah, why are you on here? What am I getting involved in? That's right. Yeah. Yeah, look, I think that with complainants, we're often, you know, some complainants do have taken leave, are stressed, you know, and sometimes it is appropriate to get medical clearance that they're actually able to participate in 00:18:16.000 --> 00:18:17.000 Yeah. 00:18:17.000 --> 00:18:43.000 an investigation, and that involves, kind of, you know, asking them to go back to their treating doctor and saying, look, this is what's, you know, bringing along their guide, our guide for participants that sets out what's to be expected in a workplace investigation, and asking their training practitioner to sort of say, yep, they can 00:18:43.000 --> 00:18:49.000 Yeah. 00:18:49.000 --> 00:18:50.000 Yeah. 00:18:50.000 --> 00:18:56.000 They can participate in it, or they can't, right? Or these are the accommodations that we might need to be able to do this safely. So getting… if someone is, you know, actually off… been off work with stress-related illnesses, then we… we can appropriately involve medical practitioners in those circumstances. 00:18:56.000 --> 00:18:57.000 Yeah. 00:18:57.000 --> 00:19:09.000 And even I think one of the things I've started to do, you know, after doing mental first aid training and suicide prevention training is just kind of having that check-in at the end of the interview and making sure that the person feels okay, taking them out of the interview, talking about, you know, what are you going to do next? Are you going back to work? Are you going to pick up your kids? You know, do you have 00:19:09.000 --> 00:19:12.000 It's that hope, isn't it? Yeah. 00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:23.000 Having a cup of tea, whatever it is, but just kind of, you know, finishing it off. And again, you know 00:19:23.000 --> 00:19:24.000 Yeah. 00:19:24.000 --> 00:19:27.000 encouraging them to speak with their support person. If their support person's there, or to reach out to EAP or other supports. Yeah, really closing it off in that way, yeah. 00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:43.000 Yeah, brilliant. Yeah, thank you. Okay, so we've talked about the first point where participants might raise safety issues around obviously the first complaint and the raising of the complaints issues. Brooke, what are some of the other points in the investigation where safety 00:19:43.000 --> 00:19:46.000 You really potentially comes to the forefront. 00:19:46.000 --> 00:20:01.000 I think too, Jo, in a lot of situations, well, in some situations, I shouldn't use such a broad brush, but in a lot of situations, the wellbeing of the respondent sometimes gets 00:20:01.000 --> 00:20:25.000 lost in the, you know, employer receives complaint, complainant is obviously very upset, right, our policy says we must do this, the manager says we must do this, and we're all in… and so, I think sometimes it gets forgotten 00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:26.000 The respondent is still our employee. Yeah 00:20:26.000 --> 00:20:35.000 that managing the respondent is also a really important task, because obviously their health and wellbeing is still as important. 00:20:35.000 --> 00:20:36.000 We know 00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:46.000 So one and this is one of my biggest bugbears is when we haven't triaged or the complaint hasn't been triaged properly and decisions have been made to, you know, stand the 00:20:46.000 --> 00:20:54.000 Stand the respondent down, you know, tell the respondent that a complaint has been made 00:20:54.000 --> 00:21:09.000 When, in the absence of any, and, you know, when employers call me and say, oh, do we tell… I should, I should… and I said, and my first question is, well, what are you going to tell them? 00:21:09.000 --> 00:21:15.000 Yeah. 00:21:15.000 --> 00:21:16.000 Yep. 00:21:16.000 --> 00:21:17.000 Oh, I'm going to tell them a compliance paper. Oh, terrific. So what are you going to tell them then? Because their first question has got to be, who is it? What are the allegations? What's going to happen next? You have no idea at that point 00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:18.000 Yeah. 00:21:18.000 --> 00:21:31.000 So I guess for me, Jo, it's triaging first, working out, you know, if the complain obviously there are going to be situations where people's physical and emotional safety and 00:21:31.000 --> 00:21:49.000 are paramount and you know there are allegations of very serious misconduct in those cases, obviously a person has to be immediate action needs to be done. But I would argue in those cases, most of the time, the respondent is aware of what has occurred 00:21:49.000 --> 00:22:06.000 So, where… but in other matters, I think it's really important to take a breath after a complaint has been lodged and work out, okay, the first, you know, the first step is, working out what process we're going to apply, and 00:22:06.000 --> 00:22:26.000 working in order to do that, of course, we have to interview the complainant, we have to see whether they're… they might have a complaint, and their complaint might be valid, but it might… we might not be able to form it up into procedurally fair allegations, in which case, what do we do 00:22:26.000 --> 00:22:27.000 Yeah. 00:22:27.000 --> 00:22:38.000 We might go down the mediation path, we might have a facilitated discussion. In those cases, if we can do that relatively efficiently, you are then in a position to go to the respondent and say, okay, this is the complaint that we've 00:22:38.000 --> 00:22:57.000 has been made. These are the broad brush of the allegations, and this is what we're going to do. And I don't think… a lot of employers are sometimes, feel like they're being misleading when they do that, but the absence of information from the respondents 00:22:57.000 --> 00:23:00.000 perspective creates stress 00:23:00.000 --> 00:23:04.000 So 00:23:04.000 --> 00:23:12.000 Yes. 00:23:12.000 --> 00:23:13.000 Yes. 00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:17.000 Yeah, yeah. And there are cases. There are a bunch of cases on this where people have been told that there's a complaint made against them, put out on gardening leave, you know, suspended from work with pay, and then left for months, months and months, and not told what's been going on, and were not told the substance of their allegation. And 00:23:17.000 --> 00:23:18.000 Yeah 00:23:18.000 --> 00:23:21.000 It's resulted in compensable injury. You know, it's yeah 00:23:21.000 --> 00:23:22.000 Yeah. 00:23:22.000 --> 00:23:23.000 Yeah. 00:23:23.000 --> 00:23:26.000 It's absolutely a thing, yeah. 00:23:26.000 --> 00:23:28.000 Tan, what about you? What are your thoughts about this? 00:23:28.000 --> 00:23:43.000 Well, I mean, I think Brooke is exactly right. And I think, you know, the respondent is the person I know sometimes a complainant might think that there's a, you know, depending on what happens in the investigation, it's going to have consequences for them, and that can be true, but the respondent is the person that is 00:23:43.000 --> 00:24:01.000 facing disciplinary consequences. I did very once, very, very early in my investigations career, once do an investigation where based on what the complainant had told me, they then brought allegations. I wasn't involved in that, but they then brought allegations against the complainant 00:24:01.000 --> 00:24:02.000 Oh, wow 00:24:02.000 --> 00:24:09.000 Based on what, yeah, it was that sort of, you know. 00:24:09.000 --> 00:24:10.000 Yes. 00:24:10.000 --> 00:24:11.000 Yeah, that concurrent wrongdoing. 00:24:11.000 --> 00:24:12.000 Yes 00:24:12.000 --> 00:24:21.000 where they've also engaged in conduct that concurrent wrongdoing, yeah. But I mean, generally, you know, the disciplinary consequences are going to be faced by the respondents, so I think that's why, you know, when we start talking about next phase 00:24:21.000 --> 00:24:36.000 that really can impact people, or where there's potentially, you know, dangers of victimization and respondents need to be warned not to if they're all in the workplace together, not to be going off and talking to anybody else 00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:39.000 Is really where we are bringing up 00:24:39.000 --> 00:24:54.000 That contradictory evidence phase, where we're asking, you know, generally the complainant or the respondent, or sometimes witnesses, to respond to credible, relevant, and significant adverse evidence, you know, where we're saying we need you to look at that. And I think 00:24:54.000 --> 00:25:09.000 By this stage, you know, probably we've been involved in this process for a while. Participants at this point might be like, you know, I'm over this, why is this not done yet? I just want it to end. And I think, as well, like, being asked to respond only to the evidence that 00:25:09.000 --> 00:25:31.000 contradicts what you've said is inherently stressful. Like, it's confronting, and I always make sure that this is a phase in which I always contact the people before I send the evidence, and I say, look, I just want you to understand, this is not the whole enchilada, this is not everything I'm considering, this is just very specific evidence that I need you to comment on because it's a point at which 00:25:31.000 --> 00:25:32.000 Yeah. 00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:37.000 You know, I need some more information. So it can be really confronting to address 00:25:37.000 --> 00:25:56.000 you know, what your colleagues might have said? Are you not… might have perceived? Because it's very often, you know, you have an investigation, and I'm sure we've all had this, where people give you the same witnesses, and sometimes they back one person, sometimes they back the other person, sometimes they're kind of in the middle, and they're like, I don't really agree with anyone 00:25:56.000 --> 00:25:57.000 It is. 00:25:57.000 --> 00:26:02.000 And that's confronting for people, you know, to address what your colleagues have said about you. 00:26:02.000 --> 00:26:11.000 Yeah. And how do you address that psychosocial safety at this point, Brooke? Have you got thoughts on that? 00:26:11.000 --> 00:26:12.000 A broken record 00:26:12.000 --> 00:26:29.000 Look, as Tana said, and again, I feel like a little bit of a… But communication is critical. Yeah, I feel like a broken record, but communication is critical. So, acknowledging that it's going to be, as Tan said, difficult information. And so, you know, I'll often preface my well first thing I do is 00:26:29.000 --> 00:26:30.000 Yep. 00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:50.000 Call them, contact them and say, you know, remember we discussed way back when you were interviewed that this would be happening. It's now happening. I plan to get it to you on, you know, Wednesday or Thursday. Is that going to be all okay? Because if Thursday's their daughter's birthday, let's not do a Thursday 00:26:50.000 --> 00:26:51.000 Yep, yep, yep. 00:26:51.000 --> 00:27:09.000 Accommodating that as far as we can. And number two is in the email and obviously in any conversations, I will often say 00:27:09.000 --> 00:27:26.000 Yeah. 00:27:26.000 --> 00:27:27.000 Yeah. 00:27:27.000 --> 00:27:31.000 As Tan has said, this is not the whole enchilada. I love that. It's not in perhaps more articulate language, I say, you know, this is just because I'm putting this to you, it doesn't mean that I've added any extra credibility or weight to this evidence. It's just a step in the procedural fairness journey. If you don't 00:27:31.000 --> 00:27:34.000 want to give me any information 00:27:34.000 --> 00:27:49.000 That's fine. The other thing, too, that has just occurred to me, that I also do is, you know, make sure that I put it in a format that is easily, can be easily navigated and easily responded to. So 00:27:49.000 --> 00:27:54.000 Yeah. 00:27:54.000 --> 00:27:55.000 No, but 00:27:55.000 --> 00:28:05.000 you know, little things like numbering that… I know this sounds really basic, but it makes it easy for pe… if people are already sort of stressed about the process, you want to make it as easy for them as possible. So, you know, numbering the paragraphs so that if 00:28:05.000 --> 00:28:20.000 If they can… when they're responding, they say, in relation to paragraphs 1 to 3. And making sure that, you know, they understand that there's no need to respond if they're merely going to tell me what they've already said 00:28:20.000 --> 00:28:21.000 Yep. 00:28:21.000 --> 00:28:22.000 Yeah. 00:28:22.000 --> 00:28:35.000 and I'll, you know, so I think there are a couple of things that you that you can do just sort of help match it. That is probably the one of the most stressful parts of the whole investigation process, I think 00:28:35.000 --> 00:28:36.000 Yeah, absolutely. 00:28:36.000 --> 00:28:40.000 But you know it's required. We have to do it. 00:28:40.000 --> 00:28:41.000 Yeah. 00:28:41.000 --> 00:28:42.000 Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah 00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:51.000 I guess, Tan, what about 00:28:51.000 --> 00:28:52.000 Yeah. 00:28:52.000 --> 00:29:15.000 When I guess just I might add this communication point. I mean, there's good studies out there looking at the way in which people absorb information under stress. 00:29:15.000 --> 00:29:16.000 Yes. 00:29:16.000 --> 00:29:17.000 And look, people absorb, you know, only about a third of the information that they're given in stressful environments, and so we need to keep that in the forefront of our minds when we are going for that building trust and transparency piece of psychosocial safety. So we need to communicate with that… we need to over-communicate with our participants. We need to communicate with them over the phone 00:29:17.000 --> 00:29:34.000 in writing via email, we need fact sheets. We need people to hear the steps of the investigation again and again, so they become educated about what to expect and where this process is going, and know that this is coming up, okay, then the next thing is that the investigator will make their findings 00:29:34.000 --> 00:29:48.000 But… so that we are participating in that education of the participant to build that trust and transparency, so that there is that level of safety, and so that people understand where their agency lies within an investigation process as well, yeah. 00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:49.000 Yeah. 00:29:49.000 --> 00:29:52.000 What about when the outcomes are delivered, Tan? 00:29:52.000 --> 00:30:03.000 Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of worry and emotion around this for both the complainant and the respondent because the outcome can have a big impact on 00:30:03.000 --> 00:30:18.000 what their working lives are going to be like going forward. You know, if the complainant, thinks, well, I can't work with this person again, but, you know, we've not substantiated allegations, or we've found that there are things that could be better, but it's not 00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:48.000 So serious that the person's going to be leaving the workplace. No, these people are going to have to work together again, and those relationships are going to have to be rebuilt. So I think we did do a webinar earlier in the year in which we talked about what happens after the investigation, you know, how do we communicate the outcomes? And that has some really useful information around where to next, what can you do 00:30:49.000 --> 00:30:50.000 Yeah. 00:30:50.000 --> 00:30:52.000 You know, how, we want to make sure that the outcomes are delivered in a way that supports psychosocial safety for both parties. And I think 00:30:52.000 --> 00:31:06.000 part of that I know, Jody, you and I have both done a bit of work lately with the gender-based violence code for universities, and that has some specific things about, you know, when complainants have to be told about what's communicated to respondents 00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:10.000 And that's not a bad kind of model 00:31:10.000 --> 00:31:23.000 to the complainant that this is the day that we're going to let the respondent know that this is the outcome. And I mean, I think the tricky thing as well is there are, and usually we've talked about this at 00:31:23.000 --> 00:31:47.000 you know, earlier in an investigation with compliance with witnesses, that there is confidentiality around some of the outcomes, like, you know, a complainant and witnesses are not necessarily going to know what the disciplinary outcome was, or exactly what happened 00:31:47.000 --> 00:31:48.000 Yeah. 00:31:48.000 --> 00:31:54.000 Sometimes they'll know, because, you know, we're all now doing training about sexual harassment in the workplace, or appropriate behavior, and we think it's because we've had these complaints, you know. But I think that 00:31:54.000 --> 00:32:02.000 You know, this is where 00:32:02.000 --> 00:32:08.000 Yeah. 00:32:08.000 --> 00:32:09.000 Yeah 00:32:09.000 --> 00:32:12.000 So much of this goes into that larger cultural piece, isn't it? And if people don't have trust in the organization, that's where communicating the outcomes is going to be difficult. Because if people see somebody in the workplace 00:32:12.000 --> 00:32:19.000 And they think, well, why are they still here? I think the major thing, though, is, you know, people will accept that 00:32:19.000 --> 00:32:31.000 fine, you know, we're all still continuing in the same team, but it's about if people aren't really seeing that the behavior is changing after that, where they start to lose faith. Anyway, I've gone off a little bit on a tangent there. 00:32:31.000 --> 00:32:32.000 But 00:32:32.000 --> 00:32:33.000 No, I get it though. I think that's right. Yeah, it's 00:32:33.000 --> 00:32:45.000 Yeah, I think, but making sure that… yeah, outcomes are delivered in person with appropriate support, even if someone 00:32:45.000 --> 00:32:46.000 Yeah. 00:32:46.000 --> 00:32:48.000 Yeah, and deliver them, like, actually deliver and tie off the end of the investigation, make sure that you actually do communicate back to respondent, complainant and participants. Yeah 00:32:48.000 --> 00:32:55.000 Yeah, absolutely. 00:32:55.000 --> 00:32:56.000 Yeah. 00:32:56.000 --> 00:32:59.000 And even, like, witnesses, you know, considering letting them know that thanking them for their participation in the investigation, and it's over now. Like, you don't have to say, this is, you know, but 00:32:59.000 --> 00:33:00.000 Yeah. 00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:03.000 It's done. So they're not hanging out there. 00:33:03.000 --> 00:33:18.000 Yeah. 00:33:18.000 --> 00:33:19.000 Yeah 00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:20.000 I've got a couple of questions that kind of touch on this point. So one is, how would you manage a complainant's expectation when they're frustrated about not being provided with the information regarding an investigation because there's only limited information that you can give them to protect privacy, integrity of the investigation 00:33:20.000 --> 00:33:28.000 And the second question is, how do you address safety for a complainant when they don't know the outcome, and that causes them distress? 00:33:28.000 --> 00:33:32.000 So, I mean, I'd be interested in both of your thoughts about that. I mean, I guess 00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:43.000 How do we manage expectations? So we do provide a complainant with information about the the the running of the investigation, but 00:33:43.000 --> 00:33:50.000 Where we don't provide information, we don't recommend providing information to the complainant is about 00:33:50.000 --> 00:34:04.000 The outcomes of the investigator. So if someone's being disciplined, or if they've been taken down a pay bar, or they've been, I don't know. 00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:06.000 Yeah. 00:34:06.000 --> 00:34:07.000 Yeah. 00:34:07.000 --> 00:34:08.000 Yeah. 00:34:08.000 --> 00:34:14.000 had a bump in there, a ding in their KPIs, or something along those lines. That's not really the complainant's business, and that's appropriate to keep that confidential. But I do think it's appropriate to communicate with the complainant about the outcomes of the investigation. So, the investigation's at an end 00:34:14.000 --> 00:34:39.000 A number of the allegations have been substantiated, and we are taking appropriate disciplinary action, or we are taking action that's appropriate. Obviously, you'll understand that that's not appropriate for you to be informed of the detail of the outcomes that are going to be 00:34:39.000 --> 00:34:40.000 Yeah 00:34:40.000 --> 00:34:41.000 spoken to with the respondent, but… but this is the outcome of the investigation. I think we… we can and should communicate that to the… to the complainant 00:34:41.000 --> 00:34:51.000 But yes, I agree that it isn't appropriate in a lot of circumstances to let the complainant know about what penalty the respondent has received. 00:34:51.000 --> 00:34:56.000 But I do think in those circumstances 00:34:56.000 --> 00:35:16.000 There really is some work still to be done to manage and repair those relationships, and that is where something like a complainant and respondent potentially going into some sort of facilitated discussion, you know, we've done the investigation, we've ruled a line under it, we need to move on now 00:35:16.000 --> 00:35:21.000 How are we going to do that? Getting them to talk about those things is a useful thing to do. 00:35:21.000 --> 00:35:32.000 Do either of you have any thoughts on that? 00:35:32.000 --> 00:35:36.000 Yep. 00:35:36.000 --> 00:35:37.000 Yeah. 00:35:37.000 --> 00:35:39.000 I'm just going to go back to what you were saying before, Jodi and give you another plus for my approach, which is right back at the beginning of when I'm, you know, setting up with the complainant and talking about them 00:35:39.000 --> 00:35:53.000 To them about how the process is going to go, reinforcing, the ownership piece a little bit, I find helps with the, 00:35:53.000 --> 00:36:07.000 managing potentially potentially with some, you know, some people, you know. It's not going to work for, but managing the ownership of the process, because 00:36:07.000 --> 00:36:08.000 Yeah. 00:36:08.000 --> 00:36:23.000 You know people and you know it's completely understandable. People complain and they feel some ownership over. And so really reinforcing that your role in the process 00:36:23.000 --> 00:36:42.000 Your role in creating a safe workplace was to provide me with all the information that you had about the alleged behaviour. You've done that and I certainly help, you know, I'll keep you updated to ensure that 00:36:42.000 --> 00:36:57.000 But in terms of outcomes, in terms of discipline, you know, the step four in the investigation process, that's really one for us as employers to manage. And, you know 00:36:57.000 --> 00:37:10.000 it's about, as you said before, I think it comes back to then that cultural piece of, okay, well, do we… do they trust the employer to take 00:37:10.000 --> 00:37:11.000 Yep. 00:37:11.000 --> 00:37:17.000 appropriate action. You know what I mean? And some… and it's in some cases, I know that doesn't 00:37:17.000 --> 00:37:18.000 Get well. 00:37:18.000 --> 00:37:23.000 That it might not be wholly useful to but you know I think 00:37:23.000 --> 00:37:36.000 And communicating throughout the process that you remember when we first spoke, this is where we're up to now. I can't release any more information to you, because it wouldn't be fair to do so. 00:37:36.000 --> 00:37:54.000 You know, and as you said before, the repetition of that information along the way can sometimes prevent the sort of disappointment and frustration at the end when it's not quite the outcome they were desiring 00:37:54.000 --> 00:37:59.000 Yes. 00:37:59.000 --> 00:38:00.000 Yes. 00:38:00.000 --> 00:38:04.000 Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. And it's about that communication piece. This is not the complainant's investigation. The complainant doesn't get a choice about whether or not they press charges or not. This is the employer taking steps to determine whether or not there's been a breach of their policies 00:38:04.000 --> 00:38:15.000 All the laws with which they're bound. 00:38:15.000 --> 00:38:16.000 Yeah. 00:38:16.000 --> 00:38:18.000 Yeah. 00:38:18.000 --> 00:38:19.000 Yeah, yeah. 00:38:19.000 --> 00:38:24.000 Yeah, yeah. So I think that that sort of balances and I think that's what we're going to talk about next, that real procedural fairness versus being trauma informed piece in that, and it's not about, you know, if you've set up the communication channels, if you 00:38:24.000 --> 00:38:43.000 reiterated the ownership piece. Walk the line between procedural fairness and trauma-informed. So procedural fairness obviously requires that we're objective, we treat every… we're transparent, we're fair to all the parties 00:38:43.000 --> 00:38:59.000 and that the respondent is given reasonable opportunity to respond. Then as investigators, obviously, we may reasonable inquiries and then make findings based on the evidence. And then the trauma-informed piece is around 00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:23.000 the person-centered practices that we discussed earlier. So I think it is tricky, but you know 00:39:23.000 --> 00:39:24.000 Yeah 00:39:24.000 --> 00:39:37.000 They are two separate and distinct things, but I think they can work together if you try and manage it. And, you know, there are going to be unreasonable people. So no matter how much you communicate and how much you tell. And, you know, in some… but I don't think it wouldn't be 00:39:37.000 --> 00:39:39.000 Yep. 00:39:39.000 --> 00:39:43.000 Yeah, yeah 00:39:43.000 --> 00:39:44.000 Yeah, yeah. 00:39:44.000 --> 00:39:46.000 You know, non-trauma informed to reiterate something that you've told someone five times around that protects someone else's psychosocial safety. Do you know what I mean? So, yeah, it's a tricky 00:39:46.000 --> 00:39:48.000 And I think 00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:49.000 You go 00:39:49.000 --> 00:39:51.000 Yeah, it is a tricky balance. 00:39:51.000 --> 00:39:52.000 Yeah. 00:39:52.000 --> 00:39:54.000 Yeah. 00:39:54.000 --> 00:39:55.000 Tom? Sorry. 00:39:55.000 --> 00:40:08.000 Well, I was just… I do think, you know, when people feel, when they feel safe, when they feel informed, when they feel communicated with, when they feel like the process respects them, I've often had people say to me, you know, yeah, it's not an ideal process, but I feel like I've been heard. Sometimes that 00:40:08.000 --> 00:40:11.000 Yes. 00:40:11.000 --> 00:40:12.000 Yeah. 00:40:12.000 --> 00:40:23.000 you know, just giving people that opportunity so that they can engage with the process and, you know, give as clear an accounting of events as they can. They can deal with the difficult evidence. I mean 00:40:23.000 --> 00:40:24.000 Yeah. 00:40:24.000 --> 00:40:25.000 Treating people like adults, essentially, in the process. You know, we 00:40:25.000 --> 00:40:26.000 Yeah. 00:40:26.000 --> 00:40:28.000 We make sure that then 00:40:28.000 --> 00:40:43.000 We get that good evidence that we can assess and have both parties involved. So making sure that we are able then to make those decisions on the facts. I think the two things really go for me, the trauma-informed and the, you know. 00:40:43.000 --> 00:40:56.000 Procedural fairness 00:40:56.000 --> 00:40:57.000 Yes. 00:40:57.000 --> 00:41:01.000 Go hand in hand. And I don't know if this goes back to like, you know my sort of defense attorney days, but I don't think like protecting people's rights throughout the process, making sure that everybody's rights are respected throughout the process and that we are doing that throughout the process 00:41:01.000 --> 00:41:05.000 Great. 00:41:05.000 --> 00:41:06.000 No, that's right. 00:41:06.000 --> 00:41:07.000 That leads to a better process. It doesn't mean that, you know, people are going to get away with stuff or things like that. 00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:09.000 People are not necessarily always going to be happy with the outcome. 00:41:09.000 --> 00:41:10.000 No, they are not. 00:41:10.000 --> 00:41:11.000 No, not 00:41:11.000 --> 00:41:14.000 some… a level of stress is… is sometimes unavoidable. But 00:41:14.000 --> 00:41:17.000 Yeah, I think that's true. That's very true. 00:41:17.000 --> 00:41:34.000 Speaking of stress that perhaps is unavoidable, the last thing I wanted to talk about was how investigators deal with their own psychosocial safety. And I know that's something that we try to be proactive about here. But I mean, what are the pressures 00:41:34.000 --> 00:41:39.000 on investigators, and how do we deal with it 00:41:39.000 --> 00:41:40.000 Yeah 00:41:40.000 --> 00:41:42.000 Do you guys want to just sort of list off a number of those 00:41:42.000 --> 00:41:43.000 Well, I think 00:41:43.000 --> 00:41:54.000 Yeah, well, I think there's always time pressure, pressure to get things done quickly, particularly where we have that situation where people are being stood down 00:41:54.000 --> 00:42:08.000 But it's that tension between trying to do things as quickly as you can, but also honoring where people are in the process. People might be on sick leave, stuff like that, you know, other things happen. 00:42:08.000 --> 00:42:13.000 how the behavior, you know, what behaviors you might get from participants 00:42:13.000 --> 00:42:21.000 Sometimes the, you know, nature of the matter, all those things can, I think, really cause a lot of stress. Brooke or the others, do you think that I 00:42:21.000 --> 00:42:23.000 Not touched on 00:42:23.000 --> 00:42:28.000 Oh, no, I think well recently for me it's been the volume of material that 00:42:28.000 --> 00:42:29.000 Yeah. Oh, AI 00:42:29.000 --> 00:42:36.000 People send me with that that I have to, you know go through a 50 page complaint document 00:42:36.000 --> 00:42:44.000 to find 00:42:44.000 --> 00:42:45.000 Yeah. 00:42:45.000 --> 00:43:11.000 One of the things that I find really interesting is just the way in which conflict tends to transmit. And there's studies that look at that, right? But you might have a complainant who's making a complaint that the respondent is very brass, very intimidating and overbearing and sends, you know innumerable critical emails late at night and then 00:43:11.000 --> 00:43:13.000 Yeah. 00:43:13.000 --> 00:43:14.000 Yeah. 00:43:14.000 --> 00:43:15.000 You know, you'll be the investigator dealing with a respondent who's quite brusque and sending in numerous intimidating emails late at night. So there's that… that sort of ability for conflict to sort of transfer, right? And so being aware of that, I think, as an investigator, is a really important part of 00:43:15.000 --> 00:43:31.000 But look, I think in terms of strategies, I think debriefing, having, you know, a touch point at work that you can sort of always good to have 2 minds across the matter as well. So debriefing with colleagues 00:43:31.000 --> 00:43:32.000 Yeah. 00:43:32.000 --> 00:43:34.000 Keeping up your general well-being, going for the half an hour walk, even though you really 00:43:34.000 --> 00:43:48.000 you know, can't fit it in. And making sure to… I think that you've got a good mix of work, so you're not doing investigation back to back to back to back, or, you know, like, heavy investigation back-to-back. 00:43:48.000 --> 00:43:50.000 Yeah. 00:43:50.000 --> 00:43:51.000 That's right. We've got 00:43:51.000 --> 00:44:11.000 Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think that's right. We've got a number of questions coming up. So Alan, you asked about complainants being told upfront they may not be that they not be told the details of the outcome. Yeah, I think that's what Brooke was saying. We need to be upfront with complainants in the beginning about what their role in the investigation is 00:44:11.000 --> 00:44:12.000 Yes. 00:44:12.000 --> 00:44:18.000 And what it isn't, right? And so that sort of then flows on to what it is that they are told and not told about the outcomes piece. 00:44:18.000 --> 00:44:33.000 We've got another question about any tips to provide an outcome to a complainant where the findings determined that some of the complaints were substantiated and constituted a breach of policy, but because of some mitigating circumstances that were confidential 00:44:33.000 --> 00:44:39.000 That's lessened the outcome for the respondent and the complainant, you know, is upset about that. 00:44:39.000 --> 00:44:54.000 Again, I think that does come back to those conversations with the complainant about what the process is in the beginning. And, you know, you can use hypothetical examples with a complainant. You know, you might say, there are all sorts of reasons why, even with 00:44:54.000 --> 00:45:16.000 The findings have been substantiated in some of the circumstances, that that doesn't necessarily lead to termination of employment, it may lead to other outcomes, and obviously those aren't going to be visible to you. And the reasons it might not lead to termination of employment might be a number of factors, again, that might not be visible to you. It might be 00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:46.000 Now, 30 years of unblemished service, it might be that there are a number of things going on in that person's personal life, whatever it is, but you can understand how that wouldn't necessarily be appropriate for me to be sharing that with other people in the organization. And I think that's, you know, it's explaining why it is that you might see an outcome where there's been substantiation 00:45:50.000 --> 00:45:51.000 Yeah 00:45:51.000 --> 00:45:52.000 perhaps of some serious allegations that hasn't led to a termination, has, you know, continued to have the people working in the organization together. There needs to be explanation around that without necessarily providing detail, if that makes sense. So I would 00:45:52.000 --> 00:45:59.000 be explaining without necessarily providing the personal details of the respondent in those circumstances. 00:45:59.000 --> 00:46:03.000 I actually thought that the way the person phrased the question was the perfect way to tell the complainant. 00:46:03.000 --> 00:46:12.000 Yeah, yeah, agreed, agreed, agreed. You know, you just, you would just say that there are confidential mitigating circumstances that have lessened the outcome. 00:46:12.000 --> 00:46:13.000 Yeah 00:46:13.000 --> 00:46:14.000 Yeah. 00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:15.000 Yeah. 00:46:15.000 --> 00:46:17.000 How much the 00:46:17.000 --> 00:46:28.000 Second last quick, not a last question. How much is too much documentation of the investigation process is the question. And must all communications 00:46:28.000 --> 00:46:37.000 With respondent and complainant be signed off by them. I'm not sure what that means, but how much is too much documentation of the investigation process? 00:46:37.000 --> 00:46:57.000 Anything that is credible, relevant, and significant that you are taking into consideration in your investigation report needs to be documented. So if that's obviously a witness statement, if it's a piece of evidence, if it's a material fact that leads to the issues arising that you need to comment on 00:46:57.000 --> 00:47:07.000 Around in the sort of sequoia… and then in the bleed-up to the report, you know, indicating the kinds of things that have impacted on the… on the investigation. 00:47:07.000 --> 00:47:25.000 challenges to your independence like delay, like other issues that you've dealt with. You do need to document all of those. I mean, what you're looking for when you're looking at an investigation report is something that a third party, so, you know, your decision maker definitely, but also 00:47:25.000 --> 00:47:44.000 You know, someone who's reviewing it, you know, perhaps a commissioner or a judge or, you know, a union representative, or whatever you've got in terms of your review processes, a third party who hasn't done the investigation themselves needs to be able to pick up this report and read it and have, in its entirety, the information to be able to decide 00:47:44.000 --> 00:47:58.000 For themselves, they can see why those allegations are substantiated or not substantiated, and then have the information that they need to be able to then make a decision upon outcomes. So the documentation is important. 00:47:58.000 --> 00:47:59.000 Yeah. 00:47:59.000 --> 00:48:10.000 And in the age of AI, yeah, it's another hurdle for us to get over. Just the number of documents that are coming through is pretty intense. 00:48:10.000 --> 00:48:21.000 I mean, having said that, I think if you do get an enormous folder of documents from a complainant or from a witness or respondent, it's okay to go back to them and say 00:48:21.000 --> 00:48:36.000 Thank you very much for this enormous container of documents. Can you please tell me just the one sentence is fine, but just tell me, per each document, which allegation does it apply to, and why is it relevant? Yeah, I mean, it's not your job as an investigator to sort of be a documents management 00:48:36.000 --> 00:48:48.000 person and try and guess on this stuff. You can ask those questions and get them to actually give you the documents that are relevant. 00:48:48.000 --> 00:48:49.000 I think we run over a little bit. 00:48:49.000 --> 00:48:56.000 Any other, I don't think I've got other questions. Thank you all very much for your participation and your lovely questions. I appreciate them. Any further comments, gang? 00:48:56.000 --> 00:49:02.000 Oh, sorry, Tracy 00:49:02.000 --> 00:49:03.000 Did you prefer? Oh, I can't see 00:49:03.000 --> 00:49:07.000 Do you have a question that disappeared? 00:49:07.000 --> 00:49:13.000 Tracy put up a hand, but I don't know how to actually answer your question, Tracy. I'm sorry, hang on one second. 00:49:13.000 --> 00:49:15.000 Apologies 00:49:15.000 --> 00:49:20.000 Why? 00:49:20.000 --> 00:49:31.000 I'm so sorry, Tracy, you put up your hand and I have no idea how to actually answer you. I'm so sorry about that. Perhaps if you put your question in the chat box, I can answer it. 00:49:31.000 --> 00:49:36.000 But I will keep people… oh, there we go allowed to talk. There's Tracy. 00:49:36.000 --> 00:49:38.000 You can talk now, Tracy. 00:49:38.000 --> 00:49:41.000 Oh, hi. No, no question. I was sort of saying thank you, but that 00:49:41.000 --> 00:49:43.000 Oh, that's right. 00:49:43.000 --> 00:49:44.000 you know, that's all 00:49:44.000 --> 00:49:46.000 Look 00:49:46.000 --> 00:49:47.000 Here 00:49:47.000 --> 00:49:51.000 Sorry. 00:49:51.000 --> 00:49:52.000 Excellent. 00:49:52.000 --> 00:49:53.000 Sorry. 00:49:53.000 --> 00:49:55.000 Okay, thank you. 00:49:55.000 --> 00:49:56.000 Bye. 00:49:56.000 --> 00:49:57.000 Bye 00:49:57.000 --> 00:49:58.000 Thank you, we appreciate it. And I've worked out how the raise hand function works, so that's a win-win. Thank you all, really appreciate it, and we will see you next time. Cheers. Bye now. Bye. 00:49:58.000 --> 00:50:02.000 Thank you. Bye.