Alternative facts? How we got to the truth following a chaotic office move

An employee in facilities and management raised a grievance about an office refurbishment. They claimed their new desk layout breached health and safety and no reasonable adjustments had been made for the set up of their work station.

They had prepared the grievance very well and presented photographs of the workstation. It was clear that the set up was inappropriate from looking at the photos. Their claim was that they had tried to make the space better but the work station set up was changed back, and then they were reprimanded for changing it.

What did the witness see?

The employee provided the names of several witnesses. It was clear from their witness statements that they had seen the inappropriate set up and the employee being upset about it. Their accounts seemed to support the employee’s account of what had happened.

The manager refuted the allegation entirely. They said that the set up was the employee’s responsibility because they were responsible for health and safety in the building. They reported the employee had been unhappy about being moved from a private office to an open plan area. Then they highlighted that the workstation was a temporary station during a wider refurbishment, and while shabby, was not unsafe. According to the manager, the employee had set the workstation up to be unsafe and then took the photographs.

The manager was able to provide:

• the job description of the employee, which identified that health and safety was part of the employee’s responsibility;
• emails from the employee that demonstrated their role in directing the refurbishment plan;
• a copy of a previous workstation assessment the employee had done; and
• an occupational health report.

The manager also reported:

• informal meetings had been held with the employee about the move where no notes had been taken;
• the fact that they had witnessed the original set-up of the desk before the employee made inappropriate alterations to the equipment which made it unsafe; and
• how they had asked the employee to remove the inappropriate alterations.

Getting past the impasse

Our investigator looked for information that could confirm or refute aspects of the allegation.

They asked for IT information relating to the log ins and set up of the old office. Working with the IT provider, our Investigator established the locations of the computer unit in the employee’s original office and the area where it was moved to. They audited the log-ins and the date and times of the equipment move. The information established that the employee had logged into the machine on the morning that the office move occurred. The employee logged out and it was moved to the new location and plugged in an hour later. The employee logged into the machine at this time.

This information circumstantially confirmed the employers account rather than the employees.

We had a meeting with the employee and their Trade Union representative and asked for clarity regarding who set up the workstation. The employee was initially adamant that the workstation had been set up by a manager. When presented with the IT records that showed that they had logged in, they changed their account. They admitted that they had been directed to set up the workstation in that location, thereby revealing that they had set up their workstation themselves.

The Investigator then considered the following:

• the duty of health and safety owned by an employer to an employee;
• the employee’s responsibility for their own health and safety; and
• their duties outlined in their job description for the health and safety of the building and the circumstances of the move.

The report was submitted and shared with all parties.

Prior to the grievance hearing, the Trade Union approached the employer to suggest terms for an exit. They employer was able to agree to the terms and close the matter.

Kraft HR’s attention to detail, diligence and investigative experience were key in refuting a very serious allegation. We clarified where breaches of policy, procedure or behaviour occurred, thereby allowing for a reasonable resolution of the conflict.