Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Top Ten Investigation TipsDeborah J. Muller
CREDIT QUESTIONS TOPIC
HOUSEKEEPING
The use of this seal confirms that this activity has met HR Certification Institute's® (HRCI®) criteria for recertification credit pre-approval.
Recertification Credit Hours Awarded: 1 Specified Credit Hours: HR (General) recertification credit hours toward aPHR™, PHR®, PHRca®, SPHR®, GPHR®, PHRi™, SPHRi™ recertification through HR Certification Institute's® (HRCI®). For more information about certification or recertification, please visit the HR Certification Institute website at www.hrci.org.
Recertification Credit Hours Awarded: 1 Specified Credit Hours: HR (General) recertification credit hours toward aPHR™, PHR®, PHRca®, SPHR®, GPHR®, PHRi™, SPHRi™ recertification through HR Certification Institute's® (HRCI®). For more information about certification or recertification, please visit the HR Certification Institute website at www.hrci.org.
Be watching using YOUR
unique URL for login
Stay on the webinar, online for the full 60
minutes.
Certificates delivered by
email no later
HOUSEKEEPING
than 9/24/17
• CEO and Founder of HR Acuity, leader in Employee Relations Management
• 25+ Years of Experience in the HR Industry
• Worked with Fortune 500 Companies: Honeywell, Citibank, Marsh & McLennan
• Conducted hundredsof internal employee investigations.
Today’s Presenter
Deborah J. Muller
Method for Conducting Investigation
Source: HR Acuity Employee Relations & Investigations Benchmark Study 2016
Today’s Session
Introduction
What Went Wrong?
What’s expected
Top Ten Investigation Tips
www.hracuity.com
Introduction
What Went Wrong?
What’s Expected?
10 Investigation Tips
What Went Wrong?
www.hracuity.com
What went wrong?A meeting was held on September 4, 2016 to address the written allegation from Kathy Kraft stating John Johnson instructed her to falsify
or alter vendor application, as well as, administer other direct requests she felt weren’t in compliance or needed to conform to company
and government regulations. This meeting took place in the office of Phil Phillips with Kathy and John in attendance.
I addressed with both individuals the companies’ position on the falsification of vendor or any other type of company records. It was also
explained to Kathy that if at any time if she feels she is being asked to falsify a document or violate company policy she has a right to
confidently discuss the matter with Human Resources or a Senior Executive of the company.
I then proceeded to review the letter written by Kathy addressed to John, as well as, John’s written response to Kathy’s written complaint.
At that time, John presented to Kathy his written response to each of the issues Kathy addressed. Kathy was given time to read the
response. After reading the response Kathy stated the she was told to change the date of application. John reiterated his written response
and reinforced at no time did he ever ask her to falsify the document.
In reviewing the Vendor Qualification file, I advised Kathy it is the company’ responsibility to be in compliance with all regulations and the
company has the right to institute or enforce company policy in addition to government regulations.
Kathy at times feels those requests made by John are, as she stated, “idiotic and stupid.” She was instructed that all dealings with an
immediate supervisor or business associate must be done in a business like manner and such responses will not be tolerated in the future.
She has every right to express her opinion and though she may not agree, she must comply with the request of her supervisor provide the
request doesn’t violate company policy.
At the conclusion of the meeting, I again advised Kathy of her right to discuss, with Senior Management or Human Resources, issues she
might have regarding her job responsibilities.
CC: CEO
Human Resources
www.hracuity.com
What went wrong?A meeting was held on September 4, 2016 to address the written allegation from Kathy Kraft stating John Johnson instructed her to falsify
or alter vendor application, as well as, administer other direct requests she felt weren’t in compliance or needed to conform to company
and government regulations. This meeting took place in the office of Phil Phillips with Kathy and John in attendance.
I addressed with both individuals the companies’ position on the falsification of vendor or any other type of company records. It was also
explained to Kathy that if at any time if she feels she is being asked to falsify a document or violate company policy she has a right to
confidently discuss the matter with Human Resources or a Senior Executive of the company.
I then proceeded to review the letter written by Kathy addressed to John, as well as, John’s written response to Kathy’s written complaint.
At that time, John presented to Kathy his written response to each of the issues Kathy addressed. Kathy was given time to read the
response. After reading the response Kathy stated the she was told to change the date of application. John reiterated his written response
and reinforced at no time did he ever ask her to falsify the document.
In reviewing the Vendor Qualification file, I advised Kathy it is the company’ responsibility to be in compliance with all regulations and the
company has the right to institute or enforce company policy in addition to government regulations.
Kathy at times feels those requests made by John are, as she stated, “idiotic and stupid.” She was instructed that all dealings with an
immediate supervisor or business associate must be done in a business like manner and such responses will not be tolerated in the future.
She has every right to express her opinion and though she may not agree, she must comply with the request of her supervisor provide the
request doesn’t violate company policy.
At the conclusion of the meeting, I again advised Kathy of her right to discuss, with Senior Management or Human Resources, issues she
might have regarding her job responsibilities.
CC: CEO
Human Resources
“The meeting took place in the office of Phil Phillips <supervisor> with Kathy <complainant> and John <subject
and Kathy’s manager> in attendance.”
“John <subject> presented to Kathy <complainant> his written response to each of the issues Kathy raised and
reinforced that at no time did he ask her to falsify documents.”
“Kathy <complainant> was instructed that …such responses would not be tolerated in the future.”
www.hracuity.com
What went wrong?
Adam Hanson - investigation of August 24
As a result of my meeting with Adam, I’ve come to the following conclusions:
• Adam did not deny the fact that he had stated the world is overpopulated on more than one occasion. His feeling was that it was a
general point of view and considered it “water cooler” talk which should not be taken personal. It was intended to just be a joke.
• No one ever told him to stop or that they were offended by his comments.
• He felt that Samantha was more “worldly” than other staff members and felt that he could carry these types of conversations with her
more so.
• Claimed he managed the center based on the “<Company> background” he has learned through the course of time.
• Mentioned that he had given Samantha time off without documentation.
• Never felt comfortable confronting Samantha about her attire. He claims that on numerous occasions she dressed inappropriately (i.e.
very low cut shirts)
• Adam stated that he did realize he shouldn’t have “gone off” on Samantha’s sister when she called in to the office to report Samantha’s
absence.
• In speaking with other staff members:
• Thomas Clinko never felt it was a personal issued; basically felt the office was “mismanaged”. Stated that he never viewed any
demonstration of ill will on behalf of Adam.
• Susan stated that she felt things could be said “in a different way” by Adam to the staff. Susan also asked me if I would keep things in
confidence and when I said I could not, due to the fact that I am conducting an investigation, she had nothing further to say.
www.hracuity.com
What went wrong?
Adam Hanson - investigation of August 24
As a result of my meeting with Adam, I’ve come to the following conclusions:
• Adam did not deny the fact that he had stated the world is overpopulated on more than one occasion. His feeling was that it was a
general point of view and considered it “water cooler” talk which should not be taken personal. It was intended to just be a joke.
• No one ever told him to stop or that they were offended by his comments.
• He felt that Samantha was more “worldly” than other staff members and felt that he could carry these types of conversations with her
more so.
• Claimed he managed the center based on the “<Company> background” he has learned through the course of time.
• Mentioned that he had given Samantha time off without documentation.
• Never felt comfortable confronting Samantha about her attire. He claims that on numerous occasions she dressed inappropriately (i.e.
very low cut shirts)
• Adam stated that he did realize he shouldn’t have “gone off” on Samantha’s sister when she called in to the office to report Samantha’s
absence.
• In speaking with other staff members:
• Thomas Clinko never felt it was a personal issued; basically felt the office was “mismanaged”. Stated that he never viewed any
demonstration of ill will on behalf of Adam.
• Susan stated that she felt things could be said “in a different way” by Adam to the staff. Susan also asked me if I would keep things in
confidence and when I said I could not, due to the fact that I am conducting an investigation, she had nothing further to say.
No Year
No Last Names or Job Titles
No Clear Issue
No Outcome or Actions
No Sense
What is Expected?
www.hracuity.com
#1: Set the Course
www.hracuity.com
Compliance
Consistency
Capabilities
Compliance: Is an investigation required?
www.hracuity.com
Chaos or Consistency?
HR Acuity Investigation Methodology
www.hracuity.com
A Defensible Investigation?
RESOLVED
DETERMINED
INVESTIGATED
PLANNED
OR
www.hracuity.com
Capabilities: Investigation Team
www.hracuity.com
#2: Confidentiality Conundrum
www.hracuity.com
www.hracuity.com
#3: Opening Lines
www.hracuity.com
Hi Susy. Thank you for coming to meet with me today. As you know ABC take concerns like the one you have raised very seriously. Because of that we have some standard protocols we like to review with everyone who is involved in an investigation because it will help you understand what to expect from the process but also clarify what ABC expects from you during the process. Does that make sense?
#4: Interviews
www.hracuity.com
The Intake Interview
Interviewing the Subject
Take Note
“Who is going to find out about this?”
“What is going to happen to me?”
“Can I tape this interview?”
“Can I have a copy of your notes?”
“Can I have another person with me during the interview?”
“I don’t want to participate in this interview…I really need to leave now.”
#6: Maintain Control
www.hracuity.com
#7 He Said…She Said…
www.hracuity.com
#8 The Most Important Thing
www.hracuity.com
1
2
3
4
PLANWhat was the process used to
investigate?
INVESTIGATEWhat facts did you uncover?
DETERMINEWas there merit?
RESOLVEWhat action was
taken?
# 9 Trust but Verify
www.hracuity.com
Investigation Case Audit
www.hracuity.com
#10 Trends
www.hracuity.com
#10 Trends
www.hracuity.com
KPI OBJECTIVE: MANAGING COST Stakeholder: Business Leader, CHRO Intended Result: Save business money. Specifically demonstrate savings in money spent on things such as severance, settlements, turnover, etc.
KPI OBJECTIVE: IDENTIFY AREAS OF VULNERABILITY/RISK FOR THE ORGANIZATION Stakeholder: Business Leader, CHRO Intended Results: Ability to proactively manage risk
KPI OBJECTIVE: EXPENSES AVOIDANCE RELATED TO LITIGATION AND SEVERANCE Stakeholder: CHRO/Leader of Employee Relations Intended Result: Mitigate legal risk, Drive consistency, save money, and avoid negative brand impact
Enter all questions into the “Questions” section
of the GoToWebinarpanel on your
computer screen
QUESTIONS
The use of this seal confirms that this activity has met HR Certification Institute's® (HRCI®) criteria for recertification credit pre-approval.
Recertification Credit Hours Awarded: 1 Specified Credit Hours: HR (General) recertification credit hours toward aPHR™, PHR®, PHRca®, SPHR®, GPHR®, PHRi™, SPHRi™ recertification through HR Certification Institute's® (HRCI®). For more information about certification or recertification, please visit the HR Certification Institute website at www.hrci.org.
Recertification Credit Hours Awarded: 1 Specified Credit Hours: HR (General) recertification credit hours toward aPHR™, PHR®, PHRca®, SPHR®, GPHR®, PHRi™, SPHRi™ recertification through HR Certification Institute's® (HRCI®). For more information about certification or recertification, please visit the HR Certification Institute website at www.hrci.org.
Be watching using YOUR
unique URL for login
Stay on the webinar, online for the full 60
minutes.
Certificates delivered by
email no later
HOUSEKEEPING
than 9/24/17
www.hracuity.com
Workplace Investigations
Conduct, Train, Coach
HR Acuity On-Demand
Best Practice Technology Solution
Employee Relations Experts
Advise & Assess
Ascentis HRIS:• Branded portal
• ACA-compliant
• Comprehensive benefitsadministration
• Over 300 standard reports
Ascentis Talent Management• Mobile interface
• No training required
• Easily identify top employees
• Employees can rate themselves
Ascentis HCM Solutions
• Free live webinars monthly
• Free HRCI, SHRM, and APA credits
• All webinars recorded and posted to website for free.
UPCOMING WEBINARS
• Sept. 7, 2017: Improve Your Organization with Motivational Intelligence™
• Sept. 19, 2017: Building a Sustainable Workforce
Contact Us
Webinar Questions [email protected]
Ascentis Questions [email protected]
800.229.2713
www.ascentis.com
