According to the latest report from the national equality group, the Wainwright Trust, many employers don’t learn from their own and others’ mistakes with regard to harassment. “Picking up the pieces: how organisations manage the aftermath of harassment complaints” criticises employers for their “almost pathological reluctance to admit mistakes” and “to try to ensure they are not repeated.”

The study was based on the experiences of 41 employers in both public and private sectors, who were selected on the basis of having been involved in sexual or racial harassment cases; 11 of these provided information for in-depth case studies. In addition 15 companies who declined to participate did respond with detailed reasons.

Among those employers who declined to take part in the study were: a private hospital which was planning no changes despite a number of staff having had problems with the management style of an employee who had been accused of harassment and several other staff had left; a food processing company, which had already been criticised by a tribunal after two physical assaults on an employee and which had other serious cases pending, was also contemplating no changes; a managing director, whose company had lost a case, and who believed his chief concern was to ensure better protection for “successful white male businessmen” from false allegations.

Experience of the employers who did participate in the study showed that more often than not, whether they had won or lost their claim, the employee who made the complaint rarely stayed with that organisation; equally, no matter who won or lost, the case left a legacy of resentment and hostility, with morale hard to restore, long-lasting stress for all parties and difficulty in getting back to normal working.

The research also revealed that employers tended to be more concerned with protecting confidentiality and avoiding publicity than with stopping such incidents happening again. Where they did take action after ‘losing’ a claim, the response tended to be minimal and focused on the minutiae of the case rather than looking at the issue more broadly.

Some organisations took positive steps to prevent recurrence of claims:
– One major food retailer had embarked on a comprehensive training programme, including using actors to shock managers into understanding where bullying can lead;

– Another company put a senior manager reporting directly to the chief executive in charge of overhauling equality policies and practices and put in place a sophisticated monitoring system;

– A local authority adopted a new approach to equal opportunities, focusing on dignity and respect at work and a positive attitude to diversity;

– An organisation which had been reprimanded by an employment tribunal for arranging a joint interview with a woman employee and the man accused of harassing her now accepted that this approach was too confrontational and had changed its procedures.

– Others had rewritten policies, issued guidance and introduced training, broadened its scope or made it mandatory.

Wainwright Trust Guidelines
– A comprehensive policy of zero tolerance towards every kind of harassment – verbal, written, visual (emails, internet), horseplay and physical abuse;

– Ensuring the policy is unambiguous and seen and understood by everyone, including new recruits, customers and clients;

– Creating a climate in which people can feel confident they will not be victimised if they do bring a complaint;

– Focusing training on challenging entrenched attitudes and winning understanding rather than mere legal and procedural compliance.

– Offering conciliation, mediation and support while a claim is being investigated.

After a harassment case:

– Lessons need to be learned, it says, and mistakes acknowledged, even if, for confidentiality reasons, that has to occur initially in private within the management team;

– Wider debriefing sessions may be necessary to discuss the implications and help avoid gossip and rumour, particularly where cases have been reported in the press;

– Employers should recognise that there are no ‘winners’ – whatever the outcome of the internal investigation and/or tribunal case. Everyone involved – complainant, person
complained about, witnesses, investigators, managers and staff in the department(s) concerned – is likely to have been adversely affected;

– Managers who become responsible for an employee moved following a complaint will need support during the resettlement period to minimise adverse impact on the department;

– Relationships will need rebuilding, preferably by specific actions (counselling, meetings, training etc) rather than hoping this will be achieved simply with the passage of time.

– Create an environment in which people are encouraged to raise problems in an informal, low key way as soon as they occur – and with managers who understand their role in resolving problems quickly and effectively and have the skills and confidence to do so.

If organisations can achieve that, then the problems of managing the aftermath of formal complaints and employment tribunal cases will be largely avoided.