It’s a mistake that’s all too common: An employer investigating some workplace infraction fails to act when the inquiry bumps up against a “he said/she said” situation. Then the investigation grinds to a halt.
An impasse like that, of course, makes it difficult to determine the truth about the situation at hand. But that’s no excuse to stop the investigation. Remember, contradictory evidence and conflicting stories are not valid defenses to inaction.
These situations often arise in the context of workplace harassment claims—cases in which contradictory versions of events are to be expected.
It is the role of the investigator, however, not only to gather the available evidence, but to make the difficult credibility determinations that will reveal where the truth lies and whether applicable policy has been violated.
Practical investigatory steps
There are a number of practical steps that you, as an HR investigator, can t...(register to read more)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Communicating during tough times: 7 common employee gripes (and how to respond)
- Tone alone isn't enough to turn neutral statement into evidence of bias
- Amtrak HR exec decides she won't be railroaded
- How long must we retain employee records?