Witness 2 – Head of Human Resources
Organisational Crime Unit
Case File 003
Exhibit B
Witness Interview Summary
Interviewing Officer: Detective Inspector Sarah Whitmore
Location: Human Resources Meeting Room
Interview Status: Completed
Purpose
To establish whether Human Resources identified patterns within employee concerns that were not captured by the employee survey and whether those concerns were escalated to senior management.
Interview Summary
The witness has held the position of Head of Human Resources for three years.
The witness arrived without prepared notes but referred frequently to workforce reports, grievance records and employee relations data. Unlike the previous witness, there was less emphasis on performance measures and more discussion about patterns, relationships and individual experiences.
The witness was careful throughout. They defended senior managers when they believed criticism was unfair but acknowledged concerns where evidence supported them.
Sarah noted that almost every answer contained a qualification.
The witness began with an immediate clarification.
"I think it is important to say that the majority of grievances are not upheld."
Sarah asked why that point mattered.
"Because a grievance is an allegation, not proof. We have to be fair to everyone involved. Managers need to be able to make decisions without every disagreement becoming evidence that something has gone wrong."
The witness paused.
"However, I don't think we should ignore the fact that people are raising concerns. A pattern of dissatisfaction can tell you something, even when individual cases do not meet the threshold for formal action."
Grievance Patterns
The witness confirmed that Human Resources had seen an increase in employee concerns over the previous twelve months.
The majority fell into two broad categories.
The first related to perceived inconsistency in management decisions.
Examples included annual leave requests, access to training opportunities and secondment decisions. The witness explained that investigations had generally found decisions were reasonable and within policy.
"That does not necessarily resolve the underlying issue."
Sarah asked what they meant.
"Employees don't only judge decisions by the outcome. They judge whether the process feels fair. If people don't understand why one person receives an opportunity and another does not, they often assume there is favouritism."
Sarah noted the distinction.
The issue was not necessarily whether decisions were unfair.
The issue was whether employees trusted the process.
Workload Pressures
The second recurring theme concerned workload pressure.
The witness described teams operating for extended periods with vacant posts. Employees reported feeling exhausted and frustrated when colleagues appeared not to contribute equally.
Managers frequently described these situations as competence issues.
Sarah asked whether Human Resources agreed.
The witness considered the question carefully.
"Sometimes it is a competence issue. Sometimes it is a workload issue. Sometimes it is both."
Sarah asked whether managers were encouraged to consider both possibilities.
The witness looked down at their notes.
"Probably not consistently enough."
Relationship with Senior Management
Sarah asked whether these patterns had been discussed with the Executive Team.
The witness confirmed that workforce information was regularly presented.
"We discussed engagement scores. We discussed absence. We discussed turnover. We discussed grievances."
"And the connection between them?"
"Perhaps not as explicitly as we should have done."
The witness explained that Human Resources often became involved when an individual issue had already developed.
"The irony is that HR often receives the information first. We see the grievances, the concerns and the conversations managers are having."
Sarah waited.
"Sometimes we resolve the individual problem without stepping back and asking whether there is a wider pattern."
Employee Survey
The witness confirmed that Human Resources had concerns about the falling response rate.
The issue had been noticed.
It had been discussed informally.
However, the organisation had focused mainly on what employees who responded had said rather than why some employees had stopped responding.
"The people who complete the survey tell you what they think. The people who stop completing it might be telling you something else."
Sarah asked what HR recommended.
The witness suggested focus groups involving both employees who completed the survey and those who did not.
"Otherwise we are only listening to people who still believe the process is worth using."
The witness also recommended further management development, particularly around people management skills.
"We have many technically capable managers. That does not automatically mean they are confident people managers."
The witness described the need for a more compassionate management style.
"Compassion does not mean avoiding difficult conversations. It means understanding the person behind the issue."
Closing Exchange
Before leaving, Sarah asked one final question.
"If you had been asked six months ago whether the organisation had a trust problem, what would you have said?"
The witness smiled slightly.
"I would have said we had a communication problem."
The witness looked back through their notes.
"I'm not sure those are the same thing anymore."
Detective's Assessment
Credibility
The witness appeared balanced and credible. They defended management decisions where evidence supported them but acknowledged weaknesses in organisational practice. No evidence of exaggeration was identified.
Evidence Awareness
The witness demonstrated strong awareness of workforce data, grievance patterns and employee relations issues. They appeared to recognise connections between separate issues that had not previously been treated as related.
Assumptions
The witness continues to place significant value on formal processes and outcomes. They recognise that employee perceptions matter but remain cautious about drawing conclusions from feelings alone.
Blind Spots
The witness may underestimate how quickly repeated experiences of disappointment can alter employee behaviour. Individual issues may have been resolved while the wider organisational memory remained unchanged.
Evidence Supporting the Witness
Most grievances were not upheld, supporting the witness's view that individual complaints do not automatically demonstrate wrongdoing.
Policies and procedures appear to have been followed in the majority of cases examined.
Workforce data confirms pressure in teams affected by vacancies.
Evidence Requiring Verification
Whether repeated concerns about inconsistency represent isolated complaints or a wider loss of confidence requires further investigation.
Whether consultation and communication processes influenced decisions or simply explained decisions already made remains unclear.
Whether HR advice was sufficiently influential in strategic decision-making requires further examination.
Next Line of Enquiry
Interview the trade union representative regarding recurring employee concerns.
Review recent grievances involving perceived inconsistency in decisions.
Examine previous consultation exercises to establish whether employee feedback resulted in visible changes.
Interview employees who completed and did not complete the survey.
Closing Note
The second witness introduced a new possibility.
The employee survey may not be the original source of concern.
It may be evidence of a problem that has already appeared elsewhere.
The senior executive described a communication problem.
The Head of HR described a trust problem.
The investigation must now establish whether these are separate issues or different descriptions of the same underlying problem.
End of Exhibit B – Witness 2
