Upcoming Webinar: January 23, 2025 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | The Top 10 Workplace Investigation Cases of 2024 | Register Today!
One of our core responsibilities as workplace investigators is to be impartial. The reasons for this are probably obvious: if we were to conduct an investigation with a predetermined idea of the outcome, or if we were to favour one party over the other, our investigation would not be fair, and participants would have no reason to trust in the integrity of the investigation process.
There is no question that internal investigations are resource intensive. They need to be done fast, but thoroughly. They need to be done by people who have an appropriate skill level. Parties to an investigation need to be treated fairly and in a manner that is trauma informed.
Two recent studies out of the United States are sobering reminders that workplaces still have work to do in combatting sexual harassment. Tulane University’s National Study of Sexual Harassment and Assault in the United States (“Tulane Report”) found no significant change in the prevalence of workplace sexual harassment between now and their first study conducted in 2018.
I recently presented a webinar with my colleagues, Janice Rubin and Elizabeth Bingham, called, “How to be a Good Second Reader.” The webinar was aimed at those who, like me, review investigation reports.
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.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2025
