An agency engaged an external contractor to investigate suspected misconduct. The allegations included inaccurate record keeping, acting without integrity and misuse of Commonwealth resources. The suspected misconduct was complex and wide-ranging – involving over 50 allegations.
The drafting of the allegations was vague, repetitive, with some being factually incorrect. This made it difficult for the employee to understand what was being alleged. For example, the employee was breached for non-compliance of an internal policy which did not exist at the time of the alleged misconduct. The poorly framed allegations did not explain who, when, how and why the employee’s actions and alleged misconduct were in breach of the Code of Conduct.
Our review also found the investigator had failed to follow clear and relevant lines of inquiry. Had those lines of inquiry been followed, the investigator would have discovered exculpatory evidence for some of the allegations. The investigator also accepted explanations on face value without checking the accuracy or plausibility of the explanation. Conversely, our review was able to establish other lines of inquiry which, if pursued, would have revealed further misconduct. We recommended that 32 of the 51 breach determinations be either set aside or varied. The agency accepted our recommendation.
