Join John at the Alternative Dispute and Conflict Resolution Workshop
On April 25-27, John will be a featured presenter at the Certificate Program of Interactive
Training Workshops on Alternative Dispute and Conflict Resolution. Offered by the
Mediation Centre of Southeastern Ontario, the comprehensive program will cover conflict
resolution, communication skills, and negotiation skills.
John Curtis, Conflict Coach
In addition to his work as a negotiations and mediation skills trainer with the Mediation Centre,
John is a successful lawyer, conflict coach, and sessional lecturer at Queen’s University Law School. An experienced speaker and
educator, John’s approachable style ensures professionals gain the skills they need to resolve conflict in their workplaces.
Register for the Workshop Now
Mediation Centre of Southeastern Ontario
April 25 – 27
Life certainly has changed a lot in recent weeks. If you’re lucky, your only concern is avoiding COVID-19. Others may have greater concerns, such as keeping our businesses running, caring for children or parents, lost income, or numerous other worries.
As many organizations around the world try to address the impacts of COVID-19, one of the challenges you may face is new or lingering difficulties in your workplace. Some employees may be having trouble adjusting to working remotely or may have personal situations that are interfering with work. Or, you may have a more difficult situation requiring investigation.
I wanted to dust off this blog post of mine that summarizes the key points from Alison Love’s The Manager’s Guide to Mediating Conflict. Additionally, my Conflict Roadmap is a timeless resource to help you in navigating conflict. I hope these are helpful to you in this difficult time.
Should you find yourself in need of investigative help or advice, please reach out or consult my website for other free resources. I am conducting most of my interviews via webcam to do my part to #FlattenTheCurve and ensure my clients and their employees avoid illness. After all, the law doesn’t stop for pandemics!
I hope you stay healthy and safe during these challenging times. -John
One of the most common
mistakes made in workplace harassment investigations is a failure to conduct
the investigation in a procedurally fair way.
Procedural fairness has its roots
in criminal and administrative law. The level of procedural fairness required
varies depending on what is at stake. In the criminal law context, an accused
person’s freedom may be at stake.
For criminal law matters, one expects
a court to ensure an extremely high level of procedural fairness. This is why
criminally accused people don’t even have to take the stand to give evidence in
their own defence. The Crown must prove its case and cannot force an accused to
incriminate them self.
By comparison, an administrative
body such as the Worker’s Compensation Board has a standard for procedural
fairness that looks rather relaxed compared to the criminal context.
What does procedural fairness mean for workplace investigations?
At an operational level it has many meanings. Essentially it is about ensuring that the procedural elements of the investigation do not unfairly affect any of the parties and especially that procedural elements do not affect one of the parties to the advantage of the other.
In the workplace
investigation context, procedural fairness involves questions like:
Who receives complaints of harassment? What if that person is the respondent?
Who does the investigation? Someone internal or an external professional?
How quickly must the investigation start and how quickly must it be completed? Five days, five weeks, five months…?
What interim measures should be imposed? Paid leave, change of duties, etc.?
What measures are taken to prevent witnesses from coordinating their testimony? Signed non-disclosure undertakings, penalties for interference set out in the company policy?
Has the respondent’s right to know what the complaints are been properly observed? How much detail is one entitled to know about a complaint against them? What if the written complaint is highly inflammatory? What if it was only made verbally?
The list goes on.
The courts have punished some employers with large punitive damages awards for failure to conduct a procedurally fair investigation. Awards of over $75,000 have been made for procedural fairness errors. This type of award is intended in part to serve as a wake-up call to employers to take procedural fairness seriously.
Below, I will share
two stories as cautionary tales to illustrate the importance of procedural
fairness in the workplace harassment investigation context. The cases are only
loosely based on amalgamations of facts from real investigations and should be
understood only in the educational context in which they are offered.
A senior manager (Mr. Newbie) experiences some friction with three long-serving employees who report directly to him. The organization has about fifty employees in total.
The employees bring
their complaints to the Executive Director (ED). In consultation with the Human
Resources Director, the ED decides that this friction can be managed after
brief meetings with all the people involved. The problem appears to the ED and
HR Director to be about the newly hired employee, Mr. Newbie, having some new
ideas about how things should be done and the employees are pushing back to
test his resolve and regain their perceived loss of power to establish their
own routines at work. This informal approach appears to work.
Eventually, all the parties meet in a kind of mediation-like context but without an external mediator. The ED and HR Director facilitate the discussion. Information and perceptions are shared. Reciprocal and genuine sounding apologies are made. People shake hands. There are smiles and laughter all around. The ED and HR Director even check-in every few weeks with the individuals in the group to see if the peace is being maintained. Management has done everything right. Right?
Sadly, the friction resumes. It turns out that Mr. Newbie had replaced a much-loved employee who had been terminated under a cloud of rumors about poor performance, misappropriation of company resources, etc. The three long-term employees felt great allegiance to their former boss.
After he had been unable to secure an alternate position for almost a year, the former manager, who still socialized with his old staff, began to influence them, encouraging them to sabotage Mr. Newbie.
Mr. Newbie filed a harassment complaint against all three of his direct reports. The complaint contained serious allegations of harassment. Management decided to hire an outside investigator.
The investigator was
provided with the written complaint of Mr. Newbie and that same written
complaint was shared with the three respondents by the investigator. Each of
them wrote out a response to the complaints against them and met with the investigator.
These written responses contained numerous counter-complaints against Mr.
Newbie. Most of the complaints in these counter-complaints were repeats of the
earlier complaints that Mr. Newbie and management thought had been resolved nine
Procedural Fairness Mistake
The investigator never
shared the counter-complaints with Mr. Newbie.
The investigator simply interviewed him and asked him questions related to the counter-complaints. The investigator felt that he had an adequate understanding of those complaints and did not feel the need to provide the written counter-complaints.
The problem was that Mr. Newbie did not even know he was now being investigated for harassment. He thought these old complaints were just part of the context of his complaints against the others. As the interview when on, he began to feel like he was being investigated for harassment. Several weeks later, before the investigator’s report was produced, Mr. Newbie got legal advice and complained about a lack of procedural fairness.
The investigator never
explained that he was both a complainant and a respondent. Partly as a result
of this error, the investigator also never discovered that the earlier
complaints had been entirely resolved.
The investigator also
improperly relied on the company harassment policy to justify not having shared
the three respondent’s counter-complaints with Mr. Newbie. The policy was
silent on this aspect of procedural fairness, but that does not mean it was not
required. In an age of computers, using the copy and paste functions, there are
many harassment policies out there that have problems like this. Investigators
need to know the foundational elements of procedural fairness and apply them
even if the policies are wrong or somehow lacking guidance on a particular
problem. These problems and the confidence to create correct procedures on the
fly can be extremely challenging for those without legal training.
There are several
examples in the investigation case law that warn
investigators against a type of “cold question” style of investigations in
which investigators begin by prompting the respondent for information before
revealing the true allegations. This style of investigation may be commonplace
in some TV law enforcement investigations, but it risks breaching procedural
fairness standards. Meeting with a respondent without giving advanced notice or
details of the complaint against them can come with costly consequences.
Some rudimentary best practices
for ensuring the respondent receives procedural fairness include:
Sufficient advanced notice of the investigation and the request for an interview
A written copy of the complaint and/or details of the allegations prior to meeting so that the respondent is not blindsided by claims and can prepare to discuss potentially sensitive topics. Often it is best that the investigator prepares this after meeting with the complainant. This can be a good way to take out unnecessary and inflammatory language, and adds clarity to the complaint.
Plenty of time and accommodation during the interview process in order to give a proper and full opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide their own version of events. Sometimes this means allowing parties to have a lawyer, spouse, or personal support person present during the interview process, provided they are subject to the same confidentiality undertakings. Sometimes it requires follow-up questions by telephone or email.
In a recent investigation for a medium-sized public sector employer, involving complaints of harassment against all the senior people in the organization, an unusually difficult procedural fairness concern arose. The complaints were all linked together in the form of an alleged conspiracy to harass the complainant over a period of several years. The respondents included the CEO, in-house counsel, the Human Resources Director, Members of the Board of Directors, and others.
The problem was: who handles
this complaint? Even if one of the accused senior staff hired outside counsel
or an independent HR consultant to develop an investigation mandate, retain an
investigator, and assist them with the logistics of the investigation, they
could be accused of selecting a biased lawyer or HR consultant.
It would likewise not
have been fair to insist that one of the less senior people in HR or another
department take on the administrative duties of selecting and communicating
with an external investigator to investigate the senior management team. That
junior person would essentially be overseeing an investigation of his or her
superiors – highly uncomfortable as an employee who likes their job, and not
immune from claims of bias.
The other issue was
that even if this had been attempted, none of the more junior people were
qualified to take on this role from an experience and competency perspective.
What can be done in such situations?
The Occupational Health and Safety Act has
no guidance on this. This seems to be a gap in the legislation that could be
filled by the Ministry of Labour taking on the role of appointing and providing
instructions to an investigator in these unusual cases. I doubt the government
wants such responsibility for micromanaging workplace investigations.
A more practical solution might be to anticipate this sort of problem and set up a process in advance so that such matters are referred to a pre-selected, independent law firm or HR professional. Ideally, that outside agent would limit their involvement with the employer to only perform services in these limited circumstances to avoid the criticism that they are not truly independent enough.
In this case, the in-house
lawyer (the only lawyer in the legal department) decided to carry the ball even
though he was accused of harassment. It was not clear exactly what he had done to
harass the complainant based on the initial written complaint except the
suggestion that he was complicit with others also identified who had more
specific allegations against them.
Of all the senior
people at this workplace, it was the in-house counsel who knew best what sort
of procedural fairness concerns his involvement raised. His approach was to
seek the advice of outside counsel. I was allowed to review the correspondence with
that advisor as part of my investigation, which was very helpful. It helped me
establish that the in-house counsel had been exceptionally careful and had
relied on the advice of a highly experienced and wise lawyer. The advice was
essentially to attempt to have the complaints mediated and it almost worked.
Sadly, despite several
successful mediation sessions which narrowed some of the issues, significant
issues remained unresolved in the mind of the complainant and an investigation
By the time I got involved, the in-house counsel had left and everyone except the Plaintiff believed the complaints had been resolved through mediation more than a year earlier. I was retained by an out-of-town law firm, serving as the interim in-house counsel, so the necessary independence of the person managing the investigation process on behalf of the employer was clearly established.
This was very important. That firm understood the importance of their independence and the need to examine the activities of the former in-house counsel in connection with the complaint management process. This is why I was allowed to review otherwise privileged correspondence by the in-house counsel with outside counsel in connection with the complaints.
What that review of
correspondence revealed was very careful correspondence and selection of a
truly independent, unbiased outside counsel whose advice was followed. The in-house
counsel may have dug his own procedural fairness grave by getting involved in
this way. For me it conjured up images of nuclear power plant workers in
Chernobyl marching back to the exploded reactor to fight the fire, sacrificing themselves
for the greater good. He was a brave
soul. Who knew procedural fairness could be so dangerous!
Procedural Fairness Best Practice Lesson
In advance of a
specific complaint, design a procedurally fair protocol to handle complaints
against a large block of senior management people, such as an independent law
firm or Human Resources Professional, who is restricted to this limited service
Ensuring procedural fairness is the key to conducting investigations that are “appropriate in the circumstances” as prescribed by s. 32.07 (1) (a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act R.S.O. 1990 c. O.1