I recently did several investigations which involved a bit of creativity when choosing the interview location. The situations made me think of how an interview space can affect a participant’s experience and perhaps the quality of evidence that is elicited during that meeting. Below, I offer some thoughts to consider when choosing an interview space.
The interview is an opportunity for the investigator to neutrally gather evidence. It is also an opportunity for the interviewee to talk about their understanding and observations of the situation at hand. The interview is often one of the key, if not the main, sources of information that an investigator will have.
Employers sometimes ask us for guidance on how to share the results of a workplace investigation with the parties. It’s not difficult to imagine why.
All parties to an investigation—so long as they are employees of the employer—are entitled to learn the results of the investigation, as noted in the Ministry of Labour’s Code of Practice.
Yet letting a Complainant know that his harassment complaint was not substantiated, or telling a Respondent that he engaged in bullying, is difficult information to deliver. Information like this can be physically and emotionally overwhelming for the parties to hear, and both may experience a variety of emotions in response.
Recently, I was on an airplane returning to Toronto from Sudbury. Apart from what I’m about to tell you, the flight was unremarkable. Friendly flight attendants served a selection of drinks and snacks. The flight jostled us across the sky with its typical turbulence. I sipped some wine, lamented how few pretzels there are in one bag, and caught up on the news at the end of a long day.
My tired eyes rested on the screen of an open laptop just ahead of me. What I saw was the title page of a workplace investigation report, which listed the names of the parties and the employer.
There has been much in the media in recent years about employees of various institutions using their positions as employees to gain access to information about people who use those institutions. The cases we have seen in great detail generally involved health care professionals accessing the records of famous or infamous patients, or for personal