Le 16 janvier 2020, Rubin Thomlinson donnait une conférence par webdiffusion sur les 10 cas à retenir de 2019 en matière d’enquêtes au travail. Voici les thèmes abordés et un résumé de cette présentation.
Workplace investigators all do the same thing when they conduct an investigation: they tell participants to keep the investigation and its subject-matter confidential. This instruction helps protect participants’ privacy and maintain the integrity of their evidence. But what happens to this confidentiality requirement when the investigation is over? How does an employer respond when a participant in an investigation says that they want to tell their story, in their own words, to an audience beyond the painstakingly neutral and objective investigator?
In our digital era, investigators must be increasingly technologically savvy. Evidence can take on many forms, including texts, emails and social media accounts. Many employers provide company-issued phones, which, more often than not, happen to be iPhones that are controlled by Apple IDs and rely on virtual storage. As the workplace is further digitized, and as more offices become mobile or virtual, investigations will naturally be dealing with evidence that is stored virtually on a cloud. As the decision District of Houston v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2086 (“District of Houston”) illustrates, sometimes when evidence is stored virtually, it is not so easy to access.
During the last several months, many of you have probably found yourself waking up in the morning and thinking: who’s next? Which towering figure from the world of entertainment, art, politics, restaurants, media — you name it — will be toppled due to accusations of sexual harassment? I am an employment lawyer who has worked