Upcoming Webinar: October 2, 2024 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | Unlocking the Potential of Respectful Workplace Training | Register Today!
When it comes to anonymity in workplace investigations, there are various facets. One of our partners, Liliane Gingras, recently wrote a blog about the risks of promising complainants a guarantee of anonymity throughout the investigative process. However, I would like to talk about situations where complaints are made by individuals who are completely unknown to the employer.
“If you can’t write out your mandate in a short and simple paragraph, don’t start.”
When delivering our Workplace Investigation Fundamentals sessions, this is how I start the discussion on mandate. Simply put, an investigator’s mandate is the thing (or things) that they are being asked to do, the decision (or decisions) that they are being asked to make.
In our practice as workplace investigators, we regularly conduct investigations into allegations of sexual misconduct. Investigations are critical to ensuring a fair outcome and a safe work environment when these types of serious allegations are made.
As a workplace investigator and a team lead for a group of fellow RT investigators, I spend a fair amount of time thinking about reply interviews. Anyone who has conducted an investigation themselves or reviewed an investigator’s report can probably appreciate why: the reply or follow-up interview is a place where the need to balance the fairness, neutrality, thoroughness, and confidentiality of the investigation really comes into focus.
A random question occurred to me the other day, “Could disciplining an employee due to their body odour be a form of discrimination?” This question occurred to me when I did a double take reading the headline of the Washington Post article, “Lawsuit says American Airlines kicked 8 Black men off plane, citing body odor.”
My colleagues Christine Thomlinson and Lori-Ann Green recently wrote about how an organization’s respect at work policies, often written to comply with its legal obligations and to correspond with legislative requirements, may use legal and technical language which can be difficult to interpret, and may, from the perspective of those whom the policy is designed to protect, not be easy to navigate.1
At the outset of an investigation, a complainant may ask whether their identity will be disclosed to the person who is the subject of the complaint (the “respondent”). Investigators need to be careful about how they answer that question.
I remember it like it happened yesterday. My colleague and I were packing our briefcases at the end of a long day. Another colleague approached and offered to carry my colleague’s briefcase. She declined his offer, and he offered again. She refused again, and he said, “But you’re such a little thing.” I remember this incident so clearly, even though it happened several years ago. It was disorienting and awkward.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2024
