This 3 hour course helps those investigating sexual harassment to understand good practice when investigating sexual harassment at work and the common mistakes that often occur.

The course starts with a short reminder about the definitions of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment and when “banter/jokes” fall into these categories.   It moves on to demonstrate, through the use of case studies and templates, how to conduct effective and investigations and reach robust decisions. 

For Whom
This course is for all those who may be involved in the investigation of sexual harassment at work.  It is also suitable for, new to role managers and HR teams looking to understand the investigation process. 

The course requires participants to have a good understanding of what sexual harassment is, the Worker Protection Act and related organisational policies/procedures.

CONTENT

1. UNDERSTANDING SEXUAL HARASSMENT
   This short introductory session provides a light touch reminder on what sexual harassment is and helps clarify the grey borderline areas between banter and sexual harassment.
   • How is bullying and harassment defined differently?
   • What constitutes sexual harassment?
   • Jokes, Banter and the border lines between harassment
   • What triggers investigation
   • Informal and Formal Interventions

2. ENSURING ROBUST INVESTIGATION
   Session begins by explaining the importance of planning investigations and using robust interview templates. Simple but effective templates are presented and participants consider how they would use these in some real-life scenarios.

• 6 key steps
• 14 common errors and mistakes
• Questioning and linking techniques
• ACAS codes
• Outcomes and options
• Organisational policy and procedure
• After care

 3. WHAT CAN GO WRONG?
When investigating sexual harassment every decision and action has the potential to trigger an unwanted, often unexpected, response or development. Participants explore what can be learned from some real-life case studies where employer decisions were over turned at tribunal

3. • Three elephant traps
   • 6 tribunal case studies – you decide – did the judge agree?