Published on April 23, 2014
CONDUCTING A WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIO Chuck Tahirali, Senior HR Consultant (416) 216-5901 firstname.lastname@example.org
Why Conduct an Investigation? • Discriminatory harassment • Workplace harassment • Workplace violence (including threats) • Other misconduct (e.g., theft) • Other interpersonal problems
Why Conduct an Investigation? • Part of an effective defence against legal claims • Legally required component of workplace violence and harassment policies/programs • My be penalized specifically for failure to investigate • Failure to investigate may undermine confidence in employer and/or lead to poisoned work environment
Internal v. External Investigators • Proportionate to: - Seriousness or complexity of allegations/situation - Need for objectivity - Identity of those alleged to be involved - Potential for legal action - Own lawyer or other lawyer/investigator?
Basic Characteristics of a Good Investigation • Commences in a timely manner • Appropriate steps taken pending outcome (administrative suspensions?) • Interview everyone referred to in complaint, everyone the subject of investigation wishes you to speak to and anyone else with relevant knowledge • Provide subject of investigation with full and fair opportunity to respond
Basic Characteristics of a Good Investigation • Properly documented • Make findings based on credibility • Proper communication with all parties concerned • Best efforts to maintain confidentiality • Appropriate remedial action
Myths and Misconceptions • Can’t proceed if complainant explicitly instructs you not to proceed or if complainant does not cooperate • Complaint must be in writing (ideally, yes, but not necessary in informal investigation) • Investigation must be conducted quickly • Keep names of complainants secret
Myths and Misconceptions • Confidentiality will be maintained • “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” • One and done • Good investigator = fictional detective • Termination of the alleged perpetrator is the expected or inevitable outcome
To Suspend or Not? • Fact of investigation may upset complainant as much as experience underlying complaint • Fact of investigation may upset alleged perpetrator as much as fact of complaint • Interviews may be tainted by efforts of complainant(s) and/or alleged perpetrator(s) to influence what they say • Depending on work and work relationships, may not be practical to limit interactions between parties
Reasons for Suspension • To remove alleged victim (e.g., of harassment) from workplace to avoid further distress and/or interference with investigation. • Depending on circumstances, failure to do so could precipitate medical absence from work and/or damages for mental distress • May attempt to influence other interviewees.
Reasons for Suspension • To remove alleged perpetrator (e.g., of harassment) from workplace to avoid further interaction with alleged victim and/or interference with investigation. • Depending on circumstances, failure to do so could lead to additional damages if victim subjected to further harassment • May attempt to influence other interviewees.
Arguments Against Suspension • Suspensions with pay may be expensive • Even if paid, suspension may be perceived as a penalty • If everyone allegedly involved is not suspended, could lead to allegations of bias or discriminatory treatment • Limited or more difficult access to key individuals during course of investigation • May pose additional difficulties (e.g., home- or work-related) for those suspended
Why Not Unpaid Suspension? • Suspension without pay = traditional disciplinary penalty. • lleged perpetrator “innocent until proven guilty.” • Alleged victim who complains in good faith should not be subjected to penalty.
Why Not Unpaid Suspension? • Becomes onerous unless for short period of time • Blurs distinction between disciplinary and non- disciplinary processes • For non-union employees, unpaid suspension may be a ‘constructive dismissal’ • For unionized employee, unpaid suspensions must be for ‘cause’
Supreme Court of Canada: • Employer justified in suspending an employee for administrative reasons, but following criteria must be met: - Decision to suspend must be based on protection of legitimate business interests; - Employer must act fairly and in good faith; - Suspension must be for a relatively short period of time or be of a fixed duration; and - Other than in exceptional circumstances, the suspension must be with pay.
Suspending Union Employee with Pay • Arbitral case law mixed on question of whether an employer may impose paid non-disciplinary or administrative suspension pending outcome of investigation. • Determination of whether a paid suspension is or is not disciplinary in nature is a finding of fact, to be made in each case, dependent upon the individual circumstances.
Suspending Union Employee with Pay • Even where paid suspension is non-disciplinary, union representation should be provided if otherwise required by collective agreement • Try to be clear that suspension is non-disciplinary, to avoid later claim of “double discipline”
Administrative/Paid Suspensions • Suspend pending outcome of investigation • Try to avoid other work-related consequences (e.g., missing training opportunities) • Don’t unilaterally assign as vacation time
Conducting the Investigation • Arrange for an interview room which ensures confidentiality - off-site, if necessary • Allow sufficient time for each interview and for time between interviews whenever possible • Limit number of interviews conducted each day - you won’t be able to adhere to an overly ambitious schedule
Conducting the Interview • Ideally use 2 interviewers - easier for taking notes and better for analyzing information and reaching conclusions • Consider gender and work relationships in choosing investigators/interviewers • Can record interview but has disadvantages
Conducting the Interview • Both interviewers should take extensive notes • Onus on one investigator ask question; other to take notes; switch roles • Make careful notes re: dates, times, places, witnesses
Conducting the Interview • Inform each person at start of interview: - This is not a decision-making meeting - it is an information-gathering meeting - That the individual is required to keep everything discussed strictly confidential - Explain limits of confidentiality - That they are protected against suffering any repercussions for participating in process
Conducting the Interview • Inform each person at the end of the interview: - How they can get in touch with you if they remember something further they wish to add - That you may be back in touch with more questions and if possible to make arrangements for private communications without need to meet - Remind re: confidentiality - do not discuss interview with anyone
Written Statements • Inform each interviewee that you may prepare a written statement containing some or all of what they have said for their review and signature • Written statements are not always necessary - oft- times your written notes (and/or recordings) are sufficient • Statements useful depending on nature of issues under investigation
Conducting the Interview • Ask a mix of pre-prepared questions as well as questions which arise based on what you hear • Repeat questions and/or ask similar questions from different angles • Listen carefully for discrepancies • Pay attention to demeanour and body language • Ask for drawings; visit work locations at issue
The Alleged Perpetrator • Has right to be fully informed of the allegations • Has right to be given full and fair opportunity to respond to the allegations • This usually means disclosing names of complaints and witnesses • Typically second or last scheduled interview (of first round)
After the Interview • Type up notes as soon as possible • Make list of follow-up questions after reading notes • Interviewers/investigators should exchange and read each other’s notes • Be sure to follow up with second (or more) interviews as needed
After the Interview • Interview anyone whom the alleged perpetrator wishes you to interview • Interview anyone mentioned in any interview if it seems reasonable to suppose that such persons have relevant information • Identify loose ends and follow-up questions • “Run to Ground”
Assessing the Evidence • Try to sort out and identify what is objective/factual • Don’t be afraid to make findings based on credibility as long as you consider all information provided • Standard 1: Balance of Probabilities • Standard 2: Clear and cogent evidence • Arguably both part of same standard
Assessing the Evidence • May be appropriate to draw negative inferences from: - Silence - Repeated “no’s” - “I can’t remember” when it would be reasonable to remember
Assessing the Evidence • Don’t limit yourself to interview notes - Time cards/sheets/attendance records - Log books, meeting minutes - Personnel actions, e.g., previous disciplinary warnings, especially if written - Video surveillance • Common sense/logic
Assessing the Evidence • Taking into account the preponderance of information gathered, which version of events is most credible? • It is okay if there is insufficient information on which to determine whether the complaint is substantiated but ensure that parties understand this is different than “innocent” or “guilty”
Communications • A written report should be prepared. This may not be shared with the complainant/alleged perpetrator. • However, a letter summarizing the process, outcome and conclusions (or lack thereof) should be provided to the complainant and to the alleged perpetrator. • These letters should be legally reviewed prior to issuance.
Outcome and Remedial Action • As appropriate, the letters should set out what steps and actions the organization will be taking in response to the outcome of the investigation and the conclusions reached. • Develop an action plan and follow through on it. • Don’t immediately hold the “Dick and Jane sexual harassment seminar” (where Dick and Jane were primary parties in investigation).
Outcome and Remedial Action • Expect and manage ongoing tensions and stresses in the workplace. Provide support/access to EAP as needed. • All investigation materials should be kept away from individual personnel/HR files and kept in a secure location where they can be accessed only by senior managers/those who need to know. • Retain for as long as possible; at least 7 - 10 years.
WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS Questions? Chuck Tahirali, Senior HR Consultant (416) 216-5901 email@example.com
This brief presentation covers the concept of 'Fit for purpose' obligation in vari...
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has met with further hurdles as a DC Court of Appeal...
An impartial and clear mindset is needed when presiding over court proceedings tha...
VONNIS waarbij Hedwig Van Roy niet meer mag zeggen uitvinder te zijn van CLICS. Er...
Constitucional habeas corpus cc liminar
How to Conduct a Workplace Investigation Don’t be found ... She recalls the trepidation she felt conducting her first workplace investigations.
Conducting workplace investigations . 2 . About Acas – What we do . Acas provides information, advice, training, conciliation and other services
Guide to Conducting Workplace Investigations . Many companies, in addition to codes of ethics and conduct, have found it necessary to create investigation ...
Guidelines for Conducting Effective Workplace Investigations 3 Heffernan Consulting | 1350 Carlback Ave, Ste. 200 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | Ph: 800-234 ...
Conducting internal workplace investigations properly can prevent lawsuits by employee or defend against them
Conducting Workplace Investigations (Advanced) This more in-depth program addresses the needs of government investigators and HR personnel who are required ...
Practical Tips for Conducting Workplace Investigations Susan L. Nardone Gibbons P.C. One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 596-4487 firstname.lastname@example.org
Workplace Investigations - independent employee misconduct investigation at the workplace for companies and law firms that represent them.
• Reduces risk of legal action. − − Prompt investigation and appropriate action based on factual conclusion can satisfy an otherwise hostile employee.
Prepared by Heenan Blaikie’s Labour & Employment Lawyers Conducting Workplace Investigations: The Critical Initial Response Tuesday, April 16, 2013