Serious Misconduct Investigation - Refused to respond - WA State Government public service agency - HR - Public Service Commission standards? đ¨âđ Western Australia
I have concerns regarding what processes have been put in place following the Dept Communities/Paul White nightmare:
An investigation into Serious Misconduct was opened (and since closed) regarding the behaviour of someone at my workplace: a WA state government agency
The same behaviour has also been reported to the Western Australia Police, and they have chosen not to open or pursue an investigation (as far as myself and others are aware).
That person "refused to respond" to the internal investigation opened by the Department (i.e. he refused to participate in the investigation when they asked him) and chose instead to resign.
My understanding is that it was not in the best interest of the Department to respond or reach any finding, so long as that behaviour does not become known to the broader community.
The relevant parties were informed of this, and we were informed that because he refused to participate, they are unable to continue with their investigation or to reach any conclusion. Their justification is the he "is entitled a right of response". TBH, I don't really under what that means.
The same behaviour has also been reported to the Western Australia Police, and they have chosen not to open or pursue an investigation (as far as myself and others are aware). I appreciate that WAPOL are very busy and -- as far as they are concerned -- it is more likely his employer would investigate his behaviour and hold him accountable, as opposed to the police (with the expectation that they would assist police, if asked).
My question/s are this: If he has refused to respond to an investigation of serious misconduct: nil outcome...
Q1. Can he successfully be recruited into another job in WA public service?
Q2. Can he successfully be recruited into another job in Federal public service?
Q3. What trigger is in place to let government (WA, State and Federal) know -- during their recruitment process -- about the serious misconduct investigation?
For those giving a response, do you know the relevant policy, legislation, documentation or otherwise where this process is explained?
Background: I know that this person was investigated, and I was one of the people informed of the "nil outcome".
I remained casual acquaintances with this person and I heard him say in a social setting very flippantly that he "Doesn't work at there anymore".
The "seriousness" (e.g. minor misconduct vs. serious misconduct) was not stated in the letter informing us of the official outcome. And to be honest it is only my assumption that it was classed as a "Serious Misconduct".
Q4. Does anyone have access to the relevant policy, legislation or otherwise that explains how they would choose to classify minor misconduct vs. serious misconduct?
I am happy to let this go, however: my concern -- in case it not obvious -- is that because there was no formal outcome to the investigation, this person can get another job in state and/or federal public service, and do the same thing again.
I appreciate that people make mistakes, however I knew this person quite well, and I believe that on a personal level, this person does not believe they did anything wrong -- partly because they were not held directly accountable in any way.
Thank you!!! For those with clarifying questions that do not ask me to divulge identifying information, please post 'em đ