Your Mediation Solution
May 18, 2012 Leave a comment
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which falls under the U.S. Department of Labor, has recently published data that reflects state/territory data regarding Charges by category. Make your guess, did California, Florida or Texas have the most Charges last year?
The data can be found here…or downloaded here.
May 15, 2012 Leave a comment
Best Buy recently received and published highlights from an investigation in to several allegations of misconduct by higher level executives and others. The lessons from this investigation are still to be culled, but the bottom line is that the company responded swiftly to unsavory allegations, a response that has left them in control of fixing the problem(s), responding credibly to employees, customers, and shareholders with lemonade rather than lemons, and demonstrating a commitment to values-based leadership.
Is your company prepared to respond promptly, credibly, and with integrity to allegations of misconduct? Ensure that your Risk Management team is prepared. One Mediation can help through its workplace investigation training modules, professional investigators, and training offerings.
May 14, 2012 Leave a comment
One Mediation provides Human Resources professionals, in-house counsel and risk managers with engaging, active training on conducting an internal, workplace misconduct investigation.
Module I provides a strong foundation on the role of an investigation in resolving concerns, along with specific activities geared towards interviewing witnesses professionally and competently. Module II is a practicum for attendees to work through the components of a workplace investigation, through to a mock deposition, with immediate feedback from Labor & Employment litigators. Registrants may choose to attend only Module I; though completion of Module I is a pre-requisite to registering for Module II. The agendas for Module I and for Module II are available.
Credits through HRCI are available.
May 8, 2012 Leave a comment
Ouch! AT&T recently lost an employment lawsuit that resulted in $5 Million in punitive damages.
In that case, AT&T was accused of failing to provide religious accommodations and retaliating against a Muslim employee. In slapping AT&T with these damages, the court demonstrated in very clear terms that it was not impressed with employment policies that merely pay lip-service to the principles and rules they dictate. At issue here, AT&T had satisfactory policies regarding discrimination, harassment, retaliation and accommodations, but it did not implement them satisfactorily. Specifically, the lack of a meaningful workplace investigation into this employee’s complaints about religious discrimination was inexcusable.
Employers and Human Resources professionals should be mindful of the needs for good policies in their workplaces. However, they should be prepared to implement them with a process or procedure that includes appropriate follow-up on workplace complaints of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation and already have a ready-list of external sources, such as One Mediation, for more substantive workplace investigations and mediations, in order to resolve matters before further damage to morale, compliance, or the bottom-line occurs.
March 24, 2012 Leave a comment
Jennifer Keaton, a member of One Mediation’s panel of neutrals, has been invited to speak on negotiation on April 19, 2012 at the State Bar of Georgia. For more information, click here.
March 23, 2012 Leave a comment
A 37 Page Complaint…recently, a major agency received this written complaint from a high ranking official in the organization that blasted an even higher ranking official. Politically motivated? Do-gooder doing the right thing? Someone who’d “had it up to here”?
Too often, employers dismiss internal complaints rather than move them into a credible investigative process because they are too concerned with what may appear (and may actually be) questionable motives in raising the concern rather than focusing on “clearing the air” to determine if a problem exists.
Employers should have an investigative process in place before a need to investigate internal concerns arise. Some employers utilize “hot lines,” while others have “open door policies” and harassment policies with a stated complaint process. These options often suffice, but employers who have been through contentious litigation regarding the workplace usually can point to opportunities that they wished they’d offered to hear about the concern before hearing it from opposing counsel, a governmental agency, or through a court pleading.
Interested in learning about options for your workplace? Contact One Mediation regarding its internal dispute resolution programs, E-Resolved hotline options, and more. Simple solutions at work!
March 5, 2012 Leave a comment
January 10, 2012 Leave a comment
Jennifer Keaton is a Workplace Investigator with One Mediation.
A recent article detailed 5 “sins” of a workplace investigation. The article details five requisite skills for interviewing individuals, but it admittedly does not provide an exhaustive account of all the deadly sins.
Adding two more sins to this article, to make a complete “Seven Deadly Sins,” must include (6) not advising employee witnesses of anti-retaliation provisions that exist and (7) requesting that employee witnesses not discuss the investigation with other employees and to advise the investigator if someone does discuss the investigation with them (while it is pending).
Advising witnesses about retaliation protections provides some assurance that participating in the investigation will not bring some measure of hardship or retribution on them, at least not without the threat of recourse. This step is often a critical step to establishing rapport and obtaining cooperation from a witness.
Where an investigation requires multiple days’ of interviews and credibility determinations are a concern, an investigator should take steps to assure that witnesses do not influence the information solicited by the investigator. One means to mitigate such influence is for an investigator to request (or have an employer direct an employee) not to discuss or communicate about the interview or the investigation with other individuals, at least until the investigation is complete, and to inform the investigator of any individuals who do discuss it with them or attempt to discuss it with them. For some witnesses, the request is a relief as they can “blame” the investigator for their disinterest in discussing the matter with other employees or individuals. This kind of gag order also is effective in promoting accountability because it lets the interviewee know that someone else may “tell on them” if they discuss the interview.
Finally, if the investigator receives any reports of discussions of the investigation or the interview, it may factor into credibility determinations of witnesses and help illuminate certain motivations. If an accused harasser, for example, spends time telling individuals what they “should say,” ”better say,” or even asks what the interviewee “plans to say,” this conduct could constitute witness intimidation. It may also suggest that the accused is trying to influence the outcome of the investigation, which may demonstrate retaliatory motives or admissions of misconduct.
All told, a workplace investigators who fail to protect the investigation process may find that the investigation is compromised or otherwise ineffective. Good pre-planning with regard to an investigation can assist an investigator with avoiding such fatal flaws.
Workplace Investigation training is critical to an investigator providing a proper and professional investigation. One Mediation’s Workplace Investigation Training Modules provide a deep dive into the investigative process (Module I) and experiential learning opportunity (Module II) that provide a strong foundation for investigators in these areas. It is offered two-times per year.
January 9, 2012 Leave a comment
Janice Harper, an anthropologist, recently published an article that highlights several interesting statistics uncovered by the Ethics Resource Center about Whistleblower claims.
One stat of interest is the fact that 39% of whistleblowers’ initial complaints were not investigated by the employer. That stat, when taken together with retaliatory conduct towards the whistleblower, suggests that perhaps a reason for the employer’s lack of concern and action was precisely due to the fact that it already knew the complaint was legitimate and true, but an undesirable truth. Hence, the effort to avoid the reality and to sweep it under the rug.
The proliferation of employment laws over the past twenty years have begun to automatically come with anti-retaliation provisions in them. Indeed, in the civil rights context, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s statistics demonstrate significant increases in the filing of retaliation charges by employees. This trend is evident in other contexts, as well.
The rise of retaliation claims has resulted in some employers taking employee complaints more seriously and taking the additional time to review them, even those they believe are entirely contrived. The reason? There are many, but some of the more common reasons include the attempt by employers to identify problems early and fix them before matters escalate to litigation and the attempt to create a demonstrable pattern of taking issues seriously (rather than appearing to be the broom-wielding employer that sweeps concerns under the rug).
Due to this trend, employers have begun cross training their in-house counsel, risk managers, and HR professionals to conduct proper investigations of employee concerns and complaints. Additionally, external workplace investigators have also become more common, the recent creation of the Association of Workplace Investigators is an indicator of this growing industry.
In Georgia, employers typically turn to attorneys as external investigators into workplace complaints. These attorneys, some of whom have joined One Mediation, are well qualified in being able to quickly respond to an employee’s concerns in an impartial and well-documented and reasoned fashion. The use of independent workplace investigators with employee concerns and complaints has gained increasing acceptance as a justifiable business expense for a variety of reasons that go well beyond litigation concerns and extend to increased morale, retention of skilled employees, and economic growth potential.
January 5, 2012 1 Comment
Lorene Schaefer, Esq., Workplace Investigator in Atlanta, Georgia
Employees have exerted leverage upon employers to “take note” when they raise concerns about discrimination, harassment, retaliation and more.
Recently, the Association of Workplace Investigators was established – an entity that began as a California-focused entity that quickly became a national organization. What’s the rush? Employers are finding that it is not only a good practice to review personnel complaints for morale purposes, but also as a means to potentially reduce liability risks (whether with regard to the complaint at hand or to demonstrate a pattern of taking employee complaints seriously).
Articles abound on when to conduct an internal investigation, who should conduct an internal investigation, what should be investigated, but these articles invariably note that a critical factor of HOW these investigations are conducted is often overlooked. Many workplaces do not have an employee who has the skills or know-how to conduct a proper investigation. Due to this fact, many employers looked to lawyers or Private Investigators to conduct them. Later, HR consultants also marketed investigative services. Generally, it was happenstance as to who could or should conduct an internal workplace investigation.
With states beginning to regulate this “industry” or workplace investigators and the establishment of professional organizations to help enhance the skills, knowledge, and standards of these services, employers arguably have greater guidance in ensuring that they respond well to employee complaints. However, employers should also be exploring who within their organizations would benefit from greater training in order to conduct a workplace investigation. Not only does the Association of Workplace Investigators provide training, but other entities such as SHRM and One Mediation, provide workplace investigation training.
Risk Managers, HR professionals, attorneys and security professionals whose practices address workplace matters should add this training to their resume not only to enhance their credentials, but to ensure that their services reflect the industry standards that are being established.
One Mediation provides a broad scope of
neutral services that include traditional
mediation and arbitration, but also provides
neutrals to preside over grievance hearings and
investigators for non-surveillance
investigations.
