AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Kathy Dalton, Jonathan Wright, Gella Rips and Mirna Oghanna, Workdynamic Australia
However, procedural fairness requires that respond - ents be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances, including the seriousness, com - plexity and volume of allegations. Procedural fairness is also flexible, meaning that an employer can delay notifying a respondent of an inves - tigation or the details of allegations in order to pre - serve the integrity of the evidence. This may include interviewing the reporter or witnesses or securing documentary evidence before alerting the respondent. 2.2 Communication to Authorities In certain situations, employers may be obliged, or it may be prudent, to notify external authorities when an investigation commences or serious allegations are first identified. These considerations usually arise in relation to criminal conduct, significant professional or financial misconduct, serious safety incidents or statu - tory reporting regimes. The need to notify will depend on the nature of the allegations and the employer’s regulatory environment. For example: • police or other law enforcement agencies – where the allegations, on their face, disclose potential criminal conduct such as sexual offences, child abuse or serious fraud; • professional regulatory bodies, such as the Austral - ian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency – where the allegations raise immediate concerns about professional conduct, registration or public safety; • industry regulators, such as the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission – where allegations may indicate non‑compliance with sector‑specific legis - lative or regulatory requirements; • WHS regulators and workers’ compensation insur - ers – where an incident leading to an investigation involves a notifiable incident, work‑related injury or illness; • professional indemnity insurers – where policy terms require early notification of circumstances that may give rise to a claim; • the Commonwealth Ombudsman – where an inves - tigation has commenced following the receipt of a public interest disclosure (PID); • the Office of the Australian Information Commis - sioner (OAIC) – where there is a suspected or
actual eligible data breach requiring early assess - ment and notification under privacy laws; • financial regulators, such as the Australian Securi - ties and Investments Commission (ASIC) – where allegations signal potential contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Corporations Act”) or related financial services legislation; • integrity and anti‑corruption bodies, such as the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Com - mission (IBAC) – where allegations involving public officials raise the possibility of corrupt conduct; and • the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) – where allegations involving APRA‑reg - ulated entities may indicate material breaches of prudential financial standards, governance frame - works or risk management controls. Before notifying authorities, employers should care - fully review all relevant legislative, regulatory, con - tractual and policy obligations, including applicable thresholds, timing and content. Where those requirements are complex or carry sig - nificant legal or regulatory risk, it is prudent to seek legal advice to ensure compliance while protecting the integrity of the investigation process. Generally, employers should be careful and informed about the nature and extent of information provided to authorities, as that information may be used or relied on in external processes, and may impact the integrity of its internal processes for managing the matter. 2.3 Confidentiality Agreements and NDAs Maintaining confidentiality is paramount to the integ - rity of workplace investigations, and participants are ordinarily instructed not to disclose information about the matter. Investigators typically document the chosen approach in an investigation protocol to ensure that expecta - tions are communicated consistently. In routine or less serious matters, confidentiality is usually maintained through a lawful and reasonable direction requiring participants not to discuss the investigation while it is ongoing.
14 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook