Kate and Greg return to their virtual bar stools for their first legal decision discussion of series 3—this time tackling workplace investigations. Using the recent Department of Education NSW v SafeWork NSW decision as the backdrop, they unpack how timeliness, communication and the allocation of alternate duties during investigations are factors requiring employers design and focus. The context is sobering as the matter was prompted by a prolonged investigation that culminated in a worker’s attempted suicide.
Kate and Greg return to their virtual bar stools for their first legal decision discussion of series 3—this time tackling workplace investigations. Using the recent Department of Education NSW v SafeWork NSW decision as the backdrop, they unpack how timeliness, communication and the allocation of alternate duties during investigations are factors requiring employers design and focus. The context is sobering as the matter was prompted by a prolonged investigation that culminated in a worker’s attempted suicide.
Kate and Greg unpack why timeliness, transparency, and procedural fairness are not just administrative issues but deeply human ones. As usual, a key thread throughout the episode is the distinction between process and outcome and whether employers have fit for purpose systems to assess risk, allocate alternative duties, and monitor investigations.
Along the way, they question knee jerk formal investigations, and argue for earlier and more “human centred” options, that might actually be helpful not harmful.
Heavy topic, sharp insights, a splash of humour—and a clear warning: leave people waiting for too long, and the consequences can be catastrophic.
The episode closes with practical takeaways for employers:
Never underestimate the potential for catastrophic harm when people are left in prolonged organisational limbo.
Connect with us:
Resources:
Follow Judgemental: A psychologist and a lawyer walk into a bar
Be sure to subscribe, leave us a review or send us a message.