in my construction site two engineers had fight in yesterday, my H.O asking the incident report. pls help me.
From Saudi Arabia, Jeddah
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From Saudi Arabia, Jeddah
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Please find below how to write an incident report:
1. Include employee details such as employee ID, name, department, and their reporting boss.
2. Specify the reason for the conflict.
3. Document the names of any evidence involved.
4. Also, mention the employees' mental abilities.
Thank you.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
170Please find below how to write an incident report:
1. Include employee details such as employee ID, name, department, and their reporting boss.
2. Specify the reason for the conflict.
3. Document the names of any evidence involved.
4. Also, mention the employees' mental abilities.
Thank you.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Shajidivya,
This is in addition to what Ashok has said. When reporting, concentrate on the conflict rather than the person. Conflicts occur due to: (a) lack of resources, (b) lack of requisite skills, (c) lack of job or role clarity, (d) conflicting processes, (e) professional differences, (f) personality conflict, (g) different reporting authorities giving different instructions, (h) personal differences, likes, or dislikes based on differences in caste, creed, race, etc.
Your report should pinpoint the exact cause of the conflict rather than focus on either party's reaction.
Secondly, obtain statements from both parties. Bring both parties together and allow the senior to speak first. Subsequently, the junior or another person can contradict if necessary. However, continue to take notes as the investigation progresses. Signatures from both parties on your report are optional but important.
If needed, visit the actual location to verify the information provided by either party. Ensure there is evidence for all information shared with you. If there is no evidence, make sure to note that in your report.
As Ashok mentioned, include the names of witnesses. However, ensure that the witnesses do not provide contradictory statements. If contradictions arise, question the witness immediately and seek clarification.
During your investigation, if you discover non-compliance or violations of rules or regulations by a third party, you may include this in the report's Appendix. This may or may not be directly related to the conflict.
Best regards,
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is in addition to what Ashok has said. When reporting, concentrate on the conflict rather than the person. Conflicts occur due to: (a) lack of resources, (b) lack of requisite skills, (c) lack of job or role clarity, (d) conflicting processes, (e) professional differences, (f) personality conflict, (g) different reporting authorities giving different instructions, (h) personal differences, likes, or dislikes based on differences in caste, creed, race, etc.
Your report should pinpoint the exact cause of the conflict rather than focus on either party's reaction.
Secondly, obtain statements from both parties. Bring both parties together and allow the senior to speak first. Subsequently, the junior or another person can contradict if necessary. However, continue to take notes as the investigation progresses. Signatures from both parties on your report are optional but important.
If needed, visit the actual location to verify the information provided by either party. Ensure there is evidence for all information shared with you. If there is no evidence, make sure to note that in your report.
As Ashok mentioned, include the names of witnesses. However, ensure that the witnesses do not provide contradictory statements. If contradictions arise, question the witness immediately and seek clarification.
During your investigation, if you discover non-compliance or violations of rules or regulations by a third party, you may include this in the report's Appendix. This may or may not be directly related to the conflict.
Best regards,
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
An incident report means that the reporter wants to know the true facts. Facts differ from opinions. The reporter must visit the place if possible, gather written reports from the concerned witnesses, obtain statements from the involved persons, and then compile a report.
The report should include the time, date, and place of the incident, followed by a description of how it happened, the accounts given by the witnesses, statements from the involved persons, the reporter's opinion, and the recommended course of action. This will constitute a comprehensive report that should be self-explanatory, leaving no room for further questions from the recipient.
This protocol applies to this incident as well as any future incidents that may occur.
Vibhakar Ramtirthkar SVR Associates HR Consultant
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
An incident report means that the reporter wants to know the true facts. Facts differ from opinions. The reporter must visit the place if possible, gather written reports from the concerned witnesses, obtain statements from the involved persons, and then compile a report.
The report should include the time, date, and place of the incident, followed by a description of how it happened, the accounts given by the witnesses, statements from the involved persons, the reporter's opinion, and the recommended course of action. This will constitute a comprehensive report that should be self-explanatory, leaving no room for further questions from the recipient.
This protocol applies to this incident as well as any future incidents that may occur.
Vibhakar Ramtirthkar SVR Associates HR Consultant
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Member,
I wish to suggest taking written or verbal records from both individuals involved, along with the cause and intention to do so. Then, compare these records with the witnesses' testimonies so that you may be able to create an accurate and factual report.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I wish to suggest taking written or verbal records from both individuals involved, along with the cause and intention to do so. Then, compare these records with the witnesses' testimonies so that you may be able to create an accurate and factual report.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I second Mr. Dinesh V. Divekar and I have a reason for it. In one of my past employments, there was an incident that was reported from one of the group companies, and my colleague was overall in charge of all the manufacturing units of the company.
A worker had sought leave from a line in charge, and when he refused, he offered him a bribe of Rs. 50/- (this was almost 20 years back) to humiliate him in front of coworkers. He had also accused him of taking a bribe for doing favors on the shop floor. Incidentally, the worker happened to be an office bearer of the union. The incident sparked a wordy duel, and the matter was reported to my colleague.
Immediately, he went to the site and was promptly handed a complaint letter by both parties. A domestic enquiry was initiated. During the enquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer asked the worker, "Did you offer Rs. 50/- to the line in charge for sanctioning leave?" As the incident happened on the shop floor and there were workers who stood witness supporting the line in charge (loyal workers, of course), the worker admitted, "Yes, I offered Rs. 50/-." The enquiry officer then recorded his observations and presented it to the management.
The management initiated action against the worker. The case went up for hearing before the statutory authorities. There was an unexpected turn of events.
When the statutory officer asked him, "Did you offer Rs. 50/- as a bribe to the line in charge for sanctioning leave?" The worker said, "No, I did not offer Rs. 50/- as a bribe to the line in charge for sanctioning leave."
When the officer asked him why he stated that he offered Rs. 50/- for sanctioning leave during the enquiry proceedings, the worker promptly replied that the questions of the enquiry officer and the statutory officer were different. While the enquiry officer asked him whether he offered Rs. 50/-, the statutory officer asked him whether he offered Rs. 50/- as a bribe.
Further, he added that he only repaid a loan of Rs. 50/- he got from the line in charge, and this cannot be considered a bribe, and the second incident (sanctioning leave) was independent.
He also cited that he only answered the first part of the enquiry officer's query, "Did you offer Rs. 50/-" (Yes, I offered Rs. 50/-), so technically he did not answer the second part of the enquiry officer's query "for sanctioning leave." However, after cross-examination, the statutory officer upheld the management's decision.
Hence, it should not be mere reporting; it should be First-Hand Information as cited by Mr. Dinesh V. Divekar.
M. V. Kannan
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I second Mr. Dinesh V. Divekar and I have a reason for it. In one of my past employments, there was an incident that was reported from one of the group companies, and my colleague was overall in charge of all the manufacturing units of the company.
A worker had sought leave from a line in charge, and when he refused, he offered him a bribe of Rs. 50/- (this was almost 20 years back) to humiliate him in front of coworkers. He had also accused him of taking a bribe for doing favors on the shop floor. Incidentally, the worker happened to be an office bearer of the union. The incident sparked a wordy duel, and the matter was reported to my colleague.
Immediately, he went to the site and was promptly handed a complaint letter by both parties. A domestic enquiry was initiated. During the enquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer asked the worker, "Did you offer Rs. 50/- to the line in charge for sanctioning leave?" As the incident happened on the shop floor and there were workers who stood witness supporting the line in charge (loyal workers, of course), the worker admitted, "Yes, I offered Rs. 50/-." The enquiry officer then recorded his observations and presented it to the management.
The management initiated action against the worker. The case went up for hearing before the statutory authorities. There was an unexpected turn of events.
When the statutory officer asked him, "Did you offer Rs. 50/- as a bribe to the line in charge for sanctioning leave?" The worker said, "No, I did not offer Rs. 50/- as a bribe to the line in charge for sanctioning leave."
When the officer asked him why he stated that he offered Rs. 50/- for sanctioning leave during the enquiry proceedings, the worker promptly replied that the questions of the enquiry officer and the statutory officer were different. While the enquiry officer asked him whether he offered Rs. 50/-, the statutory officer asked him whether he offered Rs. 50/- as a bribe.
Further, he added that he only repaid a loan of Rs. 50/- he got from the line in charge, and this cannot be considered a bribe, and the second incident (sanctioning leave) was independent.
He also cited that he only answered the first part of the enquiry officer's query, "Did you offer Rs. 50/-" (Yes, I offered Rs. 50/-), so technically he did not answer the second part of the enquiry officer's query "for sanctioning leave." However, after cross-examination, the statutory officer upheld the management's decision.
Hence, it should not be mere reporting; it should be First-Hand Information as cited by Mr. Dinesh V. Divekar.
M. V. Kannan
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Kannan,
I appreciate your input; as always - a value addition.
Your anecdote, too, is interesting!!
However, I wish to point out a fact; notwithstanding whether the quasi-judicial procedure, as cited above, has been stated truly or not.
This may kindly be noted that during any Enquiry Process; the Enquiry Officer or the presiding officer should not ask any "leading questions", else there is a chance that later a court may strike out the proceedings as vitiated.
"Leading questions" are allowed only during the Cross-examination of witnesses; and it is by either side.
An Enquiry Officer is expected to be (or at least, act) NEUTRAL. Thus, such questions are not expected from him; as this would question the Principles of Natural Justice.
If a senior officer is appointed for such a role, and he acts PARTIAL in this manner by asking Leading Questions; can a subordinate lower-level employee say NO to his questions??
No wonder, the employee said Yes at that point in time.
Later on, maybe due to the guidance from his TU colleagues/co-worker, he was able to REFUTE his earlier admission.
As HR professionals, we must take care of such proceedings and procedures; so that the Enquiry process is not declared a sham later on by the judicial courts.
Such Kangaroo courts where the "Judge" himself takes on the roles of Prosecution are not considered fair in Law.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate your input; as always - a value addition.
Your anecdote, too, is interesting!!
However, I wish to point out a fact; notwithstanding whether the quasi-judicial procedure, as cited above, has been stated truly or not.
This may kindly be noted that during any Enquiry Process; the Enquiry Officer or the presiding officer should not ask any "leading questions", else there is a chance that later a court may strike out the proceedings as vitiated.
"Leading questions" are allowed only during the Cross-examination of witnesses; and it is by either side.
An Enquiry Officer is expected to be (or at least, act) NEUTRAL. Thus, such questions are not expected from him; as this would question the Principles of Natural Justice.
If a senior officer is appointed for such a role, and he acts PARTIAL in this manner by asking Leading Questions; can a subordinate lower-level employee say NO to his questions??
No wonder, the employee said Yes at that point in time.
Later on, maybe due to the guidance from his TU colleagues/co-worker, he was able to REFUTE his earlier admission.
As HR professionals, we must take care of such proceedings and procedures; so that the Enquiry process is not declared a sham later on by the judicial courts.
Such Kangaroo courts where the "Judge" himself takes on the roles of Prosecution are not considered fair in Law.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Shajidivya,
After raising the query, you had a sufficient number of responses. Now, a sufficient number of days have also passed. Would you mind confirming how you handled the situation, how you made a report, and what happened next?
We would be thankful if you could keep us in the loop with this information.
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
After raising the query, you had a sufficient number of responses. Now, a sufficient number of days have also passed. Would you mind confirming how you handled the situation, how you made a report, and what happened next?
We would be thankful if you could keep us in the loop with this information.
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Conflict Resolution & the Project Manager.pdf
Conflict Resolution.ppt
Conflict resolution Activities.doc