Like many of you, over the last couple of years, I have been hearing the buzz around the ban of the now controversial critical race theory (CRT) from some of our neighbours south of the border.
A lot of work goes into producing an investigation report that is well-written and well-reasoned. But the finished product is more than just a set of words—it is also a visual experience for the reader. While visual elements such as white space and word font certainly enhance readability, in this blog post I focus on the communicative power of visual aids (images, tables, charts, etc.) and provide some best practices for including them in investigation reports.
I recently conducted a workplace investigation that included an allegation that an internal workplace investigation was unfair. Several witnesses who were interviewed as part of the internal investigation had provided evidence that was favourable to the complainant, but neither party to the internal investigation was provided with an opportunity to respond to this witness evidence in a follow-up interview.
I’m not a particularly prolific sender of text messages (perhaps a generational thing). I’ve learned through doing investigative work that it is not unusual for work colleagues to exchange many (thousands!) of text messages over a relatively short period.
Sometimes, allegations of workplace misconduct will be clearly articulated and will be backed up by first-hand evidence of inappropriate behaviour or harassment, and employers will take the appropriate steps to conduct a fair and impartial investigation to determine whether such allegations are well founded.
Lately I have noticed a renewed focus and attention placed on the racial identities of neutral decision makers and fact finders, and on the question of whether this is something we should be concerning ourselves with when selecting one.
As workplace investigators, we regularly conduct interviews where the interviewee is accompanied by a representative from their union or association. Many collective agreements have provisions that allow employees to have their representative present during any interviews that are conducted as part of a workplace investigation, regardless of whether the employee participates as a party to the investigation or as a witness.
Before joining Rubin Thomlinson, we both worked in-house in large organizations, overseeing workplace investigations. Internal investigations can be tricky to navigate; opportunities for conflicts and confidentiality breaches are heightened when investigators work among those who they are investigating.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Policy | Copyright © 2018
