Workplace Investigations - Who Should Conduct The Investigation?

In determining who should conduct a workplace investigation, the nature of the conduct alleged, the persons accused, and persons available with the necessary level of investigation training and experience must be considered. The investigator must be fair and impartial with respect to the issues and the parties. Common choices in the selection of an investigator include human resources personnel, attorneys, outside consultants, and law enforcement personnel. Here are some advantages and disadvantages of each choice.

Human Resources: HR personnel will likely be familiar with the employees involved and have extensive knowledge of the employer's policies, practices and culture. However the openness of communication could be impeded and cause a fear of retaliation.

Attorneys: Attorneys will likely be aware of legal boundaries, but may or may not be a good investigator or interviewer. They also may be unfamiliar with the employer's policies, practices and culture. An attorney may be more useful as an overseer of the entire investigative process.

Outside Consultant: An outside consultant may appear more objective and neutral than insiders, particularly if upper management is accused. There is also less risk of a confidentiality breach. However, as with attorneys, an outside consultant may not be familiar with the employer's policies, practices, and culture.

Law Enforcement Personnel: A law enforcement personnel must provide Miranda warnings and other constitutional protections to the accused. Also, the employer looses a great deal of investigative control when using law enforcement personnel. Lack of familiarity or interest in the organization's policies, practices, and culture could be considered a negative. Plus, due to a reasonable doubt  standard of proof, there may be a need to impose higher investigative standards than necessary.

Whoever is selected to investigate, it should be someone who:

• understands the purpose of the investigation,
• appreciates the legal and practical issues,
• knows the employer's practices, policies, and culture,
• has good interviewing skills,
• is credible, respected and impartial,
• would be effective as a witness,
• is able to maintain confidentiality,
• pays attention to detail, resolves inconsistencies, addresses all open issues and prepares good documentation, and
• can weigh competing and conflicting information, make a recommendation to the decision make and support it.

And finally, a good investigator is someone who can execute the plan but is flexible enough to adapt to the twists and turns that arise during workplace investigations.

Comments

[Postergal]

Investigations should be done properly. It must be conducted by an unbiased person who is not related to any of the parties to the issue being investigated upon.

[law offices of paul lucas]

Your right Postergal. Thanks for sharing the advantages and disadvantages of each choice.

LLc

[labor lawyer manila]

Your blogs are well researched. All are related and readers get much ideas.

[Downloadz]

Good people, Timesonline recently reported that Japan’s high-tech rubbish dumps – the vast “urban mines” of landfill outside every big city – have grown so huge that the country now ranks among the biggest natural resource nations in the world. This report states that:

[lawyer philippines]

Very informative article. Objective, well-trusted, knowledgeable of law and unbiased people must conduct the investigation. The truth shall not be manipulated and twisted by emotions or personal motives.