If you’re conducting workplace investigations, it’s inevitable that at some point you’ll be faced with the dreaded “he said-she said” file. I think of a “he said-she said” scenario to be one where two parties have widely divergent versions of events and there are no eyewitnesses or other direct evidence.
In this blog, I highlight some practical applications of workplace assessments in the context of recently enacted “right-to-disconnect” legislation in Ontario and the issue of overwork more generally.
Workplace assessments have emerged as a popular and very useful tool to proactively address and respond to concerns in the workplace. It is quite often used to gather information about culture, practices, or behaviours in the workplace, to identify the cause of conflicts, or to identify potential opportunities for improvement in particular areas…
In organizational contexts, people are often familiar with investigation processes and workplace assessments as the “go to” measures to resolve complaints or conflicts in the workplace. These are important and necessary processes, but workplace restoration is in fact also an option, though not often considered.
This is a question that I have had to answer a few times in the last year. Here is a description of each process and the main differences between the two.
At Rubin Thomlinson we deliver a lot of training on conducting workplace investigations and often the discussion turns to the costs of conducting an investigation, whether it be the monetary costs of an external investigation or the time costs of an internal investigation. These costs are typically balanced with the benefits of conducting an effective investigation, such as allowing employees to be heard, demonstrating a commitment to a respective workplace culture by “walking the talk” of policies, clarifying what actually occurred, and implementing targeted outcomes.
It certainly seems that way. A recent annotated bibliography by the University of Calgary presents some pretty staggering data that suggests that academic dishonesty is “widespread amongst Canadian students and faculty.” The authors reviewed 68 studies on academic integrity performed in Canada up to and including 2017. The paper states that between half and 90% of students self-report academically dishonest behaviours.
With the second anniversary of the Bill 132 changes fast approaching (September 2018), my hope is that organizations can use some of this insight to shape future iterations of their own workplace harassment policies which, pursuant to the legislation, must be reviewed on (at least) an annual basis.