Wanted: a public sector leader to build and run Victoria's new data centre, the Victorian Centre for Data Insights.
The Mandarin is now moving into its third year of publishing, and we're immensely proud to have you invest your time with us. However, government isn'
The purpose of the standards is to set out how the public sector employment principles, which are established in legislation, are to be applied in the
Government agencies around Australia are standing up to support the campaign to end violence against women today for White Ribbon Day.
ALL THINGS P: The federal government wants to know which open data would be most useful to business, researc
If policymakers are involved in commissioning and support research, how will they know they're getting bang for buck? What’s the best way to measure
We recently moved our readers to a new system. You may need to reset your password here to login.
Not a member ? Join here for free.
Forgot your password?
Home Features Employee misconduct: how to make ‘independent’ decisions
Text size :
TAGS Administrative law, APS Code of Conduct, employment law, Labour law, Natural justice
Double dipping Code of Conduct breaches from the same facts and fishing for extra allegations are signs a delegate isn’t living up to their responsibility to first protect the agency. Employment law director John Wilson explains.
It is trite to state that any delegate appointed as decision maker in APS misconduct proceedings needs to bring an independent and open mind to the matter. But what does this actually mean?
More often than not, agencies correctly appoint someone who does not have an obvious conflicting interest in the outcome of the misconduct investigation. Failure by the agency to do so, of course, can result in delegates’ decisions being set aside on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias, or actual bias.
However, the mere appointment of someone not involved with the employee or the subject of the alleged misconduct, is not enough to satisfy the requirement of being an independent decision maker. In our practice, we see at least two other common errors in this regard.
The first set of errors arises in situations where agency procedures for handling suspected misconduct allow for the appointment of an investigator separate to the breach decision-making delegate. There is nothing wrong with the toil of an investigation into the messy facts of an employee misconduct allegation being tasked to an investigator, either internal or external to the agency. The precise role of that investigator will be set out in agency-specific procedures. However, upon receipt of the investigator’s report, an independent breach or sanction delegate cannot simply rubber stamp the investigator’s report, and blithely adopt any recommendations contained therein as their own.
Receive unlimited access, get all the latest public sector news and features, plus The Juice, our daily news update sent direct to your inbox.
The Mandarin is where Australia's public sector leaders discuss their work and the issues faced within modern bureaucracy. Join today to discover the latest in public administration thinking and news from our dedicated reporters, current and former agency heads and senior executives.
John Wilson is the managing legal director of Bradley Allen Love in Canberra and an accredited specialist in industrial relations and employment law. He has twice appeared on the Best Lawyers list, and has an extensive public sector employment practice.
Read Related Content