Responding ethically, effectively and sensitively to issues of misconduct, harassment and abuse is a priority area for the MSF movement. The resources on this page comprise a guiding framework to support you in carrying out this important task.
Responding ethically, effectively and sensitively to issues of misconduct, harassment and abuse is a priority area for the MSF movement. The resources on this page comprise a guiding framework to support you in carrying out this important task.
If there are any physical safety concerns or if the issue raised is intimate partner violence, your first priority is safety planning. Safety planning is a collaborative process by which the person affected by harm can identify places and people with whom they will be safe and protected, and contingency plans for escalation of aggression. The best option is to engage a person specialized in gender violence to complete a comprehensive safety plan. If this is not available to you, you can use the following online toolkits.
The toolkits below are most suited to situations of intimate partner violence but they can guide your thinking should a subject matter expert be unavailable.
Assuming you have established imminent safety, your next step should be to send written acknowledgement that the issue has been raised and summarize what the person can expect to happen next. Make sure you make yourself available, offering open door/times for next conversation, and offering further resources. Offer a timeline for next steps, or, if the timeline is not clear, let them know when they can expect to hear from you next and offer them your work cell number.
Throughout the case, it is important to remain regularly in contact and update the person as much as they want. It is a good idea to ask the person how they would like to receive these updates, and then follow their request.
Next, you need to determine MSF-C's jurisdiction or area of influence. Does this case need to be referred to an RBU? Does this case concern another MSFer on contract from a different partner section? If so, you may have to collaborate with the other partner section on a response. If you have any questions about MSF-C's jurisdiction as an employer, you can consult with a lawyer to determine.
Next, you need to formulate a case assessment and plan a strategy. For this, you will need a high level written overview of the behaviour being reported. This initial report does not need to be highly detailed; it only needs to be a rough chronology that gives you knowledge of who was involved, when and where. Make sure, when you request a summary, that the person knows why you are requesting it and what it will be used for. The overview is what you will share with legal counsel in order to determine how to proceed.
Completing a written summary can often be challenging or upsetting—it often brings up emotions and memories that a person has been deliberately trying to avoid. Below are some strategies you can offer or suggest:
• People often find it easier to talk about their experience while they are moving (walking, running, cycling), so you can offer to have the person dictate verbally;
• You can use a timer and intentionally break up the time into chunks of 5-10min, which allows the person to shift their focus and avoid getting overwhelmed;
• If the person feels most comfortable with a friend, family member, colleague, therapist or pet there, make sure they are aware they can have this support – they can also do it alone if they prefer; and
• Encourage the person to plan something relaxing, comforting and de-stressing after the report writing is complete, as it is often more tiring and upsetting than people expect.
The following questions and the resources below can guide your assessment.
If at any point you need to reach back to the person affected and ask for more information, make sure you explain why you need the information.
1. Did the person indicate what they are expecting or seeking? Are they interested in an informal resolution or do they want a formal investigation?
2. Does the behaviour reported appear to be in violation of MSF-C policy?
a. Does it violate the Behavioural Commitments or Code of Conduct?
b. Using sections 206 and 212 from HRHQ policy – does it meet the definitions outlined?
c. Consult with legal if it falls into 206 or 212 (harassment, bullying, discrimination or violence). In this conversation, ensure that you get clarity from the legal advisory about whether or not you will be able to share the outcomes of any disciplinary process with the person who made the report, as this can depend on employment information privacy legislation – make sure you share this information with the person reporting, so they are prepared to know/not know about outcomes accordingly
d. If it does not fall into the 206 or 211 category, does the behaviour go against the values of our Employment Philosophy? These cases can be addressed through the managerial line.
3. Are the individuals involved within MSF-C`s governing jurisdiction? (ie, do they still work for the org, or still benefit from their connection to the org?)
a. If they are not, investigation may not be the best tool, because the org`s ability to impose sanction is limited
b. Even if jurisdiction is limited, the person coming forward may want investigation regardless – this can help legitimize the experience, and also can give org some foundation to refuse re-hire if reported behaviour is substantiated
c. If case concerns an MSFer from a different section, reach to that section's Director of HR to determine who will case manage from their side
4. If the behaviour involved is physical or egregious, what safety planning conversations are required to guide action?
a. Safety planning is helpful for the complainant, and it is also useful for the org to know in terms of planning for interim conditions—areas of crossover between complainant and respondent, for example, will usually emerge in this conversation.
5. If the matter being reported is potentially criminal in nature, connect complainant with legal resources to inform their decision making and consult with legal to determine employer`s responsibility to report
6. Does the person want to explore informal resolution/pre-adjudicative options?
7. Is this case appropriate for internal or external investigation? (See internal vs external and how to choose)
8. Who will be available as a case management team? Generally speaking, the higher-risk or higher-profile the investigation, the more positional power each role should have (ie, it should move up the organization`s hierarchy)
The assessment questions are designed to help you build the next steps of how you will respond.
If there are any safety concerns, the first priority is always safety planning. In a case where there is no imminent threat of harm (ie, where safety planning has not been necessary, or where safety planning has ensured the person directly affected has adequate support and safety to continue), the typical flow of action is:
1. If using external support: using the roster of investigators and allied professionals, reach out and ascertain what external professionals' availability and schedule are like. It is often helpful to choose a few options so you can share with the case management team and choose the best option.
2. Connect with the person directly affected to share the results of the assessment. Allow them time to process the suggested next steps and identify any areas of concern or requests they have (for example, they may want to be working from home on the day when the person accused of harm is to be notified of the case). It is helpful to share a rough timeline at this point, if you have one.
3. Build a case management team -- using the Role Clarity Framework below, identify who in the organization will play key roles, and ensure they have backfill for their position as needed. Ensure that the case management team are all aware of the boundaries and expectations of their role. Along with the case management team, choose any external advisors/facilitators needed.
4. Develop, with external support and case management team, a more concrete timeline. Develop a contract w external professional.
5. In a face to face meeting, along with external support, connect again with the person directly affected to share the timeline and any conditions they need to be aware of. Also ensure they have access to psychosocial support. It is helpful to have the investigator or facilitator present at this meeting--you can ask the external professional to wait in another room and offer to the person directly affected the chance to meet them in person.
6. In a face-to-face meeting, along with external support, connect with the person accused of harm, inform them of the process, the expected timeline and any conditions they are expected to follow. Ensure they have access to psychosocial support. It is helpful to have the investigator or facilitator present at this meeting--you can ask the external professional to wait in another room and offer to the person the chance to meet them in person.
If the case has been investigated, the next step is to share the results of the investigation with both/all parties. This should be done in person, and the person who made the report should be informed first. It can sometimes be helpful to have the investigator present if they are willing, to help explain how they came to their conclusions.
The next step will be to elevate the report of findings to the Decision-Maker (see Role Clarity). Depending on the comfort of the people involved and according to the judgement of the external professional and Ethics Committee, you can offer to redact any unnecessary detail to protect privacy and dignity.
Once you have informed both parties, you should elevate the results of the investigation to the Decision-Maker. Once this has been done, inform all affected parties of the rough timeline about when they can expect to hear about the outcomes. Best practice is to keep this time lag as short as possible. Once you have outcomes, you can share these with both/all parties.
There are two cases in which MSF is legally obligated to inform police or other authorities. They are:
1. If we receive information about violence or harm affecting a child or a minor (under the age of 18), we are obligated to inform Child Protection Services. This should be done by the person who receives the information most directly. The best practice is to inform the person who disclosed, so they are aware that CPS has been notified.
2. If an act of physical aggression occurs on our premises, we are obligated to inform the police. This is the responsibility of the highest level of management present on the premises. Police typically respond by taking a summary from all witnesses and laying a charge if there is sufficient evidence.
