Upcoming Webinar: September, 23 2021 @ 12:30 PM (ET) | Nine Months into Bill C-65: Where are we? | Register Today!
Reflections and news direct from Rubin Thomlinson.
Subscribe to receive updates of interest to you.
Filtered By:
In the last blog in this series, I wrote about whistleblower policies. I indicated in that blog that these policies should include information about the channels that whistleblowers can use to report wrongdoing in their workplace. This blog is about these reporting channels.
Several of my investigations have led me to reflect on the phenomenon of “groupthink,” and how it impacts the workplace and intrudes upon workplace investigations. Groupthink is a term that was first coined by social psychologist Irving Janis, and refers to a group that, when working together, strives for harmony and consensus above all else.
Admittedly, writing about policy writing may not be the most exciting topic. It is, however, a really important one. A good policy is what sets up a whistleblower program for success. If done well, it can also give important information about what the whistleblower program entails to those who are thinking of reporting wrongdoing.
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.
What seems like a really long time ago, I wrote in one of my blogs that I would be doing a series on whistleblowing. It seemed like a great idea at the time: there isn’t that much practical information about whistleblowing out there and I have a lot to share on the topic given that I have done work in this field for many years. But then, a pandemic happened, and my “series” didn’t quite get off the ground. I’ve come back to the topic, though, as I’ve been fielding some questions about it lately.
We are often asked to determine whether systemic issues exist in workplaces, focussing on issues like sexual misconduct, harassment, racism, and alcohol and substance use. Unlike investigations, systemic reviews don’t examine isolated error or fault. Systemic reviews don’t uncover misconduct or wrongdoing of a particular person, or flag potential civil or criminal liability. Systemic reviews are different. Designed to identify issues involving an institution’s systems, policies, and practices, they can also scrutinize group behaviours, norms, and actions – in ways that an investigation or a court proceeding can’t.
On the evening of Sunday, March 7, I, along with 17 million other people, tuned in to watch Oprah’s interview of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. I am the first to admit that I wanted to hear all the details about their decision to step back as “senior” members of the Royal Family, but as an investigator, I also was also interested in how Oprah approached the interview – how she asked her questions, what she asked, and how Harry and Meghan would respond.
Most workplace investigations are not subject to independent review; though they may be considered by a court or tribunal, this would usually be in the context of a separate legal proceeding, e.g., a wrongful dismissal action or a human rights case. Certain investigations, however, may include the exercise of a statutory power of decision, which may give a party a right to pursue a judicial review to challenge the conclusions reached. In such a case, the court may directly address issues such as fairness and the reasonableness of the decision reached in the course of an investigation.
