22 Council CONNECT May 2018 Workplace Relations One judgment stated that on receipt of a claim or complaint “it is reasonable for [an employer] to consider it [has] a duty to investigate” (Blow v SBD Services Pty Limited [2013] FWC 5733). Similarly, and in the context of bullying allegations, it has been stated that an employer has “a responsibility to investigate” (see S.B. [2014] FWC 2014 at [18]). In practice, and regardless of their legal obligations, most employers would indeed investigate a formal complaint of sexual harassment or bullying and a denial of the allegations by the named employee. That is what happened in East Coast Pipeline Pty Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 101. The Queensland Industrial Commission was critical of an employer responding to such complaints with a formal investigation. This approach led to the accused employee seeking workers compensation for the psychological injury triggered by the allegations and investigation. The issue was whether the investigation was reasonable management action. The Commission found that formalising the complaints, conducting formal interviews and a two-stage interview process, recording meetings, requiring confidentiality and the signing of records was “unnecessarily forensic or elaborate”. While some may consider the approach “self-evidently reasonable”, the Commission felt otherwise. The formal investigative approach did not focus on resolution of the issue, but instead polarised staff and made a dysfunctional office even more unworkable. The lesson here is that workplace investigations into disputes and grievances between colleagues can be damaging and counterproductive to restoring appropriate work relations. Neither the complainant nor perpetrator (to use descriptors that are also counterproductive) are likely to be satisfied with the outcome. As Mr Kimber SC astutely observes: The routine use of investigations not only discourages alternative approaches but may also reduce opportunities for good business decisions and outcomes.