February 17, 2016 1 Workplace Investigations Gone Wrong: What Every HR Professional Needs to Know Human Resources Professionals Association February 17, 2016 Rudner MacDonald LLP Cynthia Ingram Senior Associate
February 17, 20161
Workplace Investigations Gone Wrong: What Every HR Professional Needs to
Know
Human Resources Professionals Association
February 17, 2016
Rudner MacDonald LLPCynthia Ingram
Senior Associate
February 17, 20162
DisclaimerThe user is authorized to use this presentation for the user’s own needs only, and is not authorized to make copies thereof for sale or for use by others.
The information provided in this presentation is intended as general legal information only, and is not legal advice or a complete statement of the law on the particular topics. Every situation is unique and involves specific legal issues.
If you would like legal advice with respect to the topics discussed in this presentation, we would be pleased to assist you.
February 17, 20163
3
Agenda1. Why investigate? 2. Changes on the horizon!3. Why conduct a reasonable and effective workplace
investigation? 4. How to conduct an effective workplace
investigation5. Choosing an investigator6. Privilege7. Questions
February 17, 20164
POLLING QUESTIONWhat type of complaints require an employer to conduct a workplace investigation?
□ Bullying □ Harassment (other than sexual)□ Sexual Harassment □ Discrimination□ Employee Theft□ Employee/Workplace Violence
Effective Workplace Investigation – Why?
DUTY TO INVESTIGATE
The “Duty” to InvestigateLaskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30The duty of an employer to provide a workplace free from discrimination incorporated a duty to investigate as a “means” by which the employer ensures that it is achieving the Code-mandated “ends” of providing its employees with a discrimination-free environmentFebruary 17, 2016
6
BUT…Scaduto v. Insurance Search Bureau, 2014 HRTO 250“The breach of the Code is not the failure to investigate per se... Employers are well-advised to investigate human rights complaints as the failure to do so can cause or exacerbate the harm of discrimination in the workplace. Internal investigations provide employers with the opportunity to remedy discrimination, if found, and can prevent Applications being filed with the Tribunal. They also limit employers’ exposure to greater individual and systemic remedies. The failure to do so is at their peril. But, if they fail to investigate discrimination that does not exist, that failure is not, in and of itself, a violation of the Code.”
February 17, 20167
The “Duty” to InvestigateZambito v. LIUNA Local 183, 2015 HRTO 605“The Tribunal’s jurisprudence recognizes that s. 5 of the Code imposes a duty on employers to investigate a complaint of discrimination. The rationale underlying the duty to investigate is to ensure that the rights under the Code are meaningful.”
“The duty to investigate is a “means” by which the employer ensures that it is achieving the Code-mandated “ends” of operating in a discrimination-free environment and providing its employees with a safe work environment.”
February 17, 20168
Changes on the Horizon March 6, 2015 - It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop
Sexual Harassment and Violence Bill 132 – Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan
Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015 Includes amendments to the OHSA expand the obligation
under s. 25(2)(h) of the OHSA to include and increase protection from workplace sexual harassment as a safety issue
Creating educational tools and materials for employers Change the definition of workplace harassment to include
“workplace sexual harassment” throughout the OHSA
February 17, 20169
10
Changes to the OHSA Workplace Sexual Harassment: (a) engaging in a course of
vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace because or sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, where the course of comment or conduct is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome; or (b) making a sexual solicitation or advance where the person making the solicitation or advance is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the worker and the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the solicitation or advance is unwelcome.
February 17, 2016
11
Changes to the OHSA New statutory duties to be imposed on employers:
measures and procedures for workers to report incidents of workplace harassment to a person other than the employer or supervisor, where the employer or supervisor is the alleged harasser;
set out how incidents or complaints of workplace harassment will be investigated and dealt with;
set out how information obtained during an investigation will be kept confidential unless the disclosure is necessary for the purpose of the investigation or taking corrective action, or is otherwise required by law;
set out how a complainant and an alleged harasser will be informed of the results of the investigation, in writing, and of any corrective action that has been, or will be, taken; and
require employers to review programs addressing harassment as needed, but at least annually.
February 17, 2016
12
Changes to Duty to Investigate
Statutory duty to investigate “incidents and complaints” of workplace sexual harassment
Not limited to formal complaints One proposed change would give and MOL/OHSA
inspector the power to order and employer to hire an independent third party to conduct a workplace investigation of harassment, and obtain an investigation report at the employer’s expense
February 17, 2016
Effective Workplace Investigation – Why?
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FAILURE TO
INVESTIGATE
February 17, 201614
The Cost of a Failure to Investigate
Islam v. Big Inc., 2013 HRTO 2009 “…a failure to investigate a complaint of
discrimination sincerely made must have the effect of worsening the situation of an individual who has complained in good faith, as it conveys an indifference to that individual’s situation and a denial of his or her dignity.”
February 17, 201615
15
Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 Morgan filed an application before the HRTO claiming
discrimination based on race Alleged conduct included the assignment of menial tasks,
being disciplined in an unfair manner and the termination of employment as a result of bringing a complaint to management
Adjudicator concluded the events and incidents complained of were not motivated by racism
Conclusion that there was no discrimination
February 17, 201616
Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada
Outcome Morgan awarded damages of 14 months' lost wages,
plus $15,000 as damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect
Adjudicator noted the company's duty to "address and respond" to Morgan's complaints
There was no finding of discrimination but the company was liable for failing to conduct an investigation and respond to Morgan’s "belief" that his rights were infringed
16
The Cost of a Failure to Investigate
Sears v. Honda Manufacturing of Canada., 2014 HRTO 45
“…it is well-established in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence that the Code imposes a duty on organizations to investigate a complaint of discrimination, and that a failure to investigate can attract liability, even if the Tribunal ultimately dismisses the underlying allegations of discrimination.”
February 17, 201617
The Cost of a Failure to Investigate
Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014 ONCA 419 At trial, Ms. Boucher was awarded $200,000 in
aggravated damages, and $1 million in punitive damages, $100,000 for infliction of mental suffering against the store manager, and $150,000 for punitive damages against the store manager
On appeal, the Court reduced the two punitive damage awards, but upheld the aggravated damages and damages for infliction of mental suffering
February 17, 201618
February 17, 201619
Indirect CostsEven with the best intentions to conduct a thorough
and proper investigation, errors can be madeErrors in workplace investigations can be costly to
the company, including in indirect costs such as corporate brand and reputation, employee morale, and employee turnover
Remember that employees not involved in the investigation will still be watching, since it could be them coming with questions, concerns or a complaint in the future
19
February 17, 201620
CONDUCTING AN EFFECTIVE WORKPLACE
INVESTIGATIONInspector Clouseau vs. Perry Mason
"When you turn your mind to the solution of a crime, you ferret out the truth."
Hamilton Burger, The Case of the Caretakers Cat
20
February 17, 201621
Pre-Investigation PreparationCarefully plan your workplace investigation,
particularly if the allegations or complaints are of a serious, sensitive or personal nature
Determine if the investigation will be conducted internally or externally
Ensure that internal investigators assigned to the investigation have received proper training and are aware of the context, including the legal context, of the complaint and allegations involved
21
February 17, 201622
Pre-Investigation PreparationDetermine which employees should be involved in
the investigationWhen multiple matters require investigation, or
where there are cross-complaints, determine whether they should be investigated together or separately
Ensure the investigation process, and what you expect, is communicated to the employees involved in the investigation
Determine what you know, and what you need to learn
22
The Role of Policies
February 17, 201624
POLLING QUESTIONDoes your Workplace Harassment Policy include a section addressing your complaint and/or investigation process or procedure?
□ Yes□ No
February 17, 201625
Policies Every company should have written policies in place that
speak to how employee complaints will be addressed Policies should include:
How to report How complaints will be investigated What steps will be taken to protect confidentiality, including
identity What steps will be taken to protect the complainant, witnesses
and the accused from reprisal – NO REPRISAL! Guidelines for Managers setting out what to do when a
complaint is received The role of the union, including the right to representation The timeline for investigation How the parties will be kept informed
25
PoliciesMake sure the investigator reviews the corporate
policies before meeting with any witnessesCopies of policies should be maintained on hand
for quick referencePolicies are to be followedFailure to follow polices is a poor practice and
could expose the employer to further liabilityThe HRTO wants to see that processes are not
only in place, but they have been followed
February 17, 201626
February 17, 201627
27
Disotell v. Kraft CanadaDisotell v. Kraft Canada Inc., 2010 ONSC 3793 Allegations of sexually inappropriate and offensive
comments made by co-workers Disotell complained to supervisor many times Once on sick leave, Kraft conducted an investigation Internal investigation by HR Investigator did not interview the 4 employees accused
of harassment, or any of the other employees working on the night shift
Conflicting information, yet night shift employees not interviewed
February 17, 201628
28
Disotell v. Kraft CanadaCostly Mistakes Supervisor failed to inform management of
allegations or intervene Relevant witnesses not interviewed Contradictory evidence overlooked Unskilled investigator Workplace policies not followed
February 17, 201629
Don't Delay If aware of situations of discrimination, harassment or
violence in the workplace, investigate immediately The employer may also be obligated to conduct an
immediate investigation – such as when a complaint of harassment or discrimination is alleged to have contravened the OHRC or the OHSA
If not handled quickly, law suits could be in your future Witness memories fade over time, or witnesses may
change their mind or have time to concoct stories A court or tribunal may interpret the delay in conducting
the investigation as the company considering the complaint as not serious
29
Don't Delay When a complaint is made, simply
accepting the allegations and offering nothing more than a “sounding board” to the complainant is not enough
Complaints must be taken seriously and dealt with promptly in a manner consistent with internal policies
Sears v. Honda Manufacturing of Canada
February 17, 201630
February 17, 201631
Interviews Interview questions and answers guide you to where you
want to go Questions should focus on the relevant facts: the 5 Ws,
and how It is a personal decision and preference of the
investigator whether to have written questions Don’t just interview witnesses thought to have relevant
evidence or information Interview all witnesses, favourable or unfavourable, and
follow-up with witnesses as necessary The focus of the interview is fact-finding to determine the
truth, not an interrogation
31
February 17, 201632
Employee InvolvementBoth the complainant and the respondent should
be interviewedAn employee under investigation should have the
chance to respond to the allegations, as well as information the investigator intends to rely on in making a decision
Determine whether an employee should be instructed not to approach or communicate with a witness or co-worker
At a minimum, the parties should be advised not to talk about the investigation
32
February 17, 201633
CommunicationEmployees should know they are being asked to
participate in an investigation, and what the purpose of the investigation is before any interview
You need not share your questions with the employees in advance
Follow-up with the parties if new details come to light in the course of the investigation
Communicate the results of the investigation with the parties, and outline what steps will be taken to resolve the issue
33
February 17, 201634
Collecting and Recording Evidence
Gather and preserve all documents and evidence available
Be open to receiving and reviewing information that seems outside the mandate of the investigation
Meet with key witnesses Take steps to ensure evidence that may be lost, modified
or deleted, whether in the ordinary course of business or not (i.e., emails, voicemail messages, video surveillance) are preserved
Failure to preserve relevant documentation and evidence may be fatal to an investigation
34
February 17, 201635
ConfidentialityKeep the process confidentialDo not give any guarantee of confidentiality to
those who participate in the investigationAdvise participants that the information obtained
in the course of the investigation will be held in strict confidence, except as necessary to investigate and respond to the complaint
Information obtained in the investigation will not be used in any form of retaliation
35
February 17, 201636
Third Party InvestigationsDo not rely on police investigation instead of your
own if an employee is suspected of criminal conduct, or is charged with a criminal offence (i.e. theft, assault)
Conduct your own independent investigation, reach your own decision, and act on that decision, regardless of any police or crown investigation
The standard of proof for criminal proceedings is higher than the standard for employers in proving grounds for employee discipline or termination
36
February 17, 201637
Do Not Predetermine the Issue
An investigator must keep an open mindThe investigator should be someone who is
objective and independentIndependence will ensure the absence of both
conscious and unconscious bias
37
February 17, 201638
Do Not Fear the ResultsIn some cases, particularly in the case of serious
complaints which are upheld, there may be discipline, terminations, or an employee may choose to leave the company
You cannot fear the possible results, since it could impact your investigation
An investigation is a fact-finding exercise, not an exercise in damage control
38
February 17, 201639
Keep Records Notes, documents and reports that are part of
the investigation should be retained and preserved
Investigation record retention should form part of your workplace investigation practices and policies
Notes and records of the investigation should include all communications, and in particular communications to the parties and witnessesSee Bank of Montreal v. Payne, 2012 FC 431
39
February 17, 201640
Act on the ReportIf you receive a report which confirm that
discrimination or harassment occurred or exists in the workplace, act immediately
Address any inappropriate behaviour or misconduct in an appropriate manner and in accordance with your policies
Ensure there is training/re-training on workplace policies
40
February 17, 201641
WHEN TO INVOLVE AN EXTERNAL INVESTIGATOR
"If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you
can hire the A-Team."
February 17, 201642
POLLING QUESTIONAre your workplace investigations conducted by internal or external investigators?
□ Internal□ External□ Both – Dependent on the investigation
February 17, 201643
43
Considerations in Choosing an Investigator
Impartial investigations begin with the choice of investigator Those responsible for selecting and retaining an investigator
should consider the following Experience and skill set Knowledge of the industry Knowledge of the workplace Knowledge of the subject matter in issue An understanding of the legal process
Check references Understand your time and budget limitations Ensure clear communication with the investigator
February 17, 201644
44
Elgert v. Home HardwareElgert v. Home Hardware Stores Limited, 2011 ABCA 112 Sexual harassment allegations made against Elgert, an
employee with almost 17 years service A father of one of the complainants initiated complaint and
investigation process and the file was managed by two of that employee's friends
Internal investigator had no training in conducting sexual harassment investigations
When asked what he had done, the investigator told Elgert "You know what you did“
At trial, awarded 24 months’ pay in lieu of notice, aggravated damages of $200,000 and punitive damages of $300,000
February 17, 201645
45
Cromwell v. Leon’sCromwell v. Leon’s Furniture Limited, 2014 CanLII 16399 (NSHRC) Complaint of racial discrimination in various forms,
including unnecessary discipline alleged workplace infractions, being passed over for management positions, and consistently teasing and name calling
The internal investigator was in a romantic relationship with the complainant, but told no one
Investigator concluded no support for the complaint NSHRC found the investigator was in a clear conflict
which undermined the reasonableness of the investigation
February 17, 201646
46
External InvestigatorWhen to consider an External Investigator:
Complaint is of a serious nature Complaint is against the company's senior
executives, human resources or the person who would conduct the investigation
Lack of time and resources to conduct an appropriate investigation
High risk for legal liability and/or changes against the company
February 17, 201647
POLLING QUESTIONWho are your external investigators?
□ Company Lawyer□ Lawyer, other than the Company’s lawyer□ HR Consultant
February 17, 201648
48
Azeff and Bobrow v. CIBCAzeff and Bobrow v. CIBC, 2013 QCCRT 299Facts: Investigation conducted based on allegations of insider
trading Investigation conducted by an external investigator who
was a member of the firm that CIBC was a major client Lack of advanced notice to participate in investigation Investigator made assumptions on credibility that were
not founded on facts Employees not provided with reasons for termination
until 1.5 years after the investigation and termination
February 17, 201649
49
Azeff and Bobrow v. CIBC
Costly MistakesLack of notice of allegations Failure to provide crucial evidence in advancePerception of bias for the investigatorFailure to communicate the outcome of the
investigation in a timely manner
February 17, 201650
50
PrivilegeSometimes a company wants to maintain privilege
over an investigation process and reportExample: If there is a risk of serious and/or
criminal liability for the company depending on the outcome
Retaining a lawyer to conduct the investigation can include providing legal advice, assessing liability and giving recommendations to the company
Alternatively, the investigator can be retained by your counsel
February 17, 201651
51
North Bay General Hospital v. Ontario Nurses' Association
North Bay General Hospital received a complaint that one of its nurses had been the subject of bullying and harassing behaviour
The Hospital retained an investigator, a lawyer, to make a determination of what occurred
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Hospital communicated to the respondent that she had violated Hospital policies
The nurse was warned and demoted, and grieved the decision
February 17, 201652
North Bay General Hospital v. Ontario Nurses' Association
The union brought a pre-hearing motion for production of the investigator’s report and communications with Hospital representatives
The Hospital objected, relying on privilegeThe arbitrator ordered the production of the
report and the communications surrounding the report
52
February 17, 201653
Privilege"Some individuals who conduct these
investigations as independent third parties are lawyers, some are not. I see no reason to distinguish between these two groups if the
purpose for which they were retained is the same, of investigating events to make findings of fact. I
see no reason to attach solicitor and client privilege to a relationship which is not that of solicitor-client just because one of the parties
happens to be a lawyer."
53
February 17, 201654
Privilege So long as the investigation process, including the terms
of reference, make it clear that the purpose of the investigation is to provide legal advice, the entire investigation process and report may be privileged from disclosure
It is recommended to include in the retainer that the investigator has been retained as an employment lawyer to conduct the investigation, and that the report will be used as the basis for providing legal advice
Representatives of the employer should not interfere with the investigation process or the final determination reached by the investigator
54
Final ThoughtsMorgan v. University of Waterloo, 2013 HRTO 1644Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc.
Elements of a “reasonable” investigation: The response must be prompt Relevant policies exist There must be corporate awareness that the conduct complained of
is prohibited The matter must be addressed seriously There must be a complaint mechanism in place – and training The employer must act so as to provide a healthy work environment The employer must communicate its actions, including the outcome
of the investigation, to the complainant
February 17, 201655
February 17, 201656
Questions
February 17, 201657
Workplace Investigations Gone Wrong: What Every HR Professional Needs to
KnowCynthia C. Ingram
Rudner MacDonald LLP Senior Associate
[email protected](416) 640-6402
@CindyIngramLLPLinkedIn: Connect with me, and visit the Rudner MacDonald Page
Blog: Rudner MacDonald BlogYouTube: Rudner MacDonald channel\
Human Resources Professionals Association February 17, 2016