Investigating employee complaints may or may not be your favorite duty but it is inevitable if you work in human resources.  Is the complaint legitimate, partially legitimate, total hogwash?  It's your job to find out, unless you hire a lawyer to do the investigation, which may be advisable, particularly in sticky or complex situations. You need to get the story from the complaining party first, ask whether there are witnesses or other evidence, decide whether you want the complaint in writing or not, etc.  Then, you need to interview the party complained about, while trying to maintain confidentiality.  If there are disagreements between the two stories (usually there is, but not always or not completely), you may need to talk to witnesses, those identified by the grievant and often some others, including witnesses identified by the party complained about and often other independent witnesses.  Is someone's best friend a reliable witness?  Does someone have an agenda other than the truth?  What is the given person's track record regarding honesty?  These are the types of things that you may need to be thinking about, just like a police detective.  Document gathering and review is often required as well and, in some cases, can be dispositive.  In addition, complaints need to be investigated promptly or you will have additional problems under the law.

It is easy to jump to conclusions after hearing the complaint.  But, follow a thorough investigation process with an open mind.  Most times, you should be able to determine the truth, very rarely are the results of the investigation indeterminate.  You may need to take some disciplinary action all the way through termination if the complaint has merit and should also talk again to the complaining party thanking him/her for the complaint and describing very briefly your conclusion.  Give a reminder that retaliation for making a complaint is not allowed under company policy and that any retaliation should be immediately reported.  You may need to follow up with the complaining party later to make sure things are going well at work.    

Get some guidance from an attorney on these matters.  Be thorough, professional, and unbiased.  Your investigative work may come under legal scrutiny later, always remember that.  Different situations may call for different investigative techniques and investigators.  As with all things, there is no paint by numbers approach here.  A well-functioning internal grievance and investigative process is an invaluable aid in avoiding or at least minimizing litigation and just makes good sense from a business, company culture, and human resources point of view.  Go forth as highly skilled workplace detectives.  Get to the bottom of the matter but maybe not in quite the same manner or dress as Ace Ventura! http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html       

 



 

One thing that has always perplexed and saddened me is the person who brags about how many hours they work or how hard they work.  "I put in 80 hour workweeks regularly" or "I'm the hardest worker in the whole company, just ask me."  Besides taking these types of claims with a huge grain of salt (the true hard workers don't have to tell you how hard or long they work), I am left to wonder who could work at full pace and capacity that many hours for an extended period of time.  My belief, only Superman. Sometimes extra-long hours are required, yes, and longer than forty-hour weeks are common and expected whether that promotes optimum efficiency or not, but can anyone maintain a workweek with time for only a few hours sleep per night for an indefinite period of time?  When you are tired, the law of diminishing returns applies. An unasked question in my head is "what did you accomplish in all that supposed extra time?"  Another question, "how high was the quality of work performed?"  There would also have to be a pacing strategy to consistently work superhuman hours.  I have witnessed folks who could have had more normal work hours if only they had been organized, efficient, had prioritized tasks, not started the project at the eleventh hour, and worked with stronger intensity.  Being bad at time-management is nothing to brag about, in my opinion.  

The other side of this is the question of what kind of employer demands all of its employees' time?  And in demanding everything, are they really winning?  Burnout, fatigue, and the law of diminishing returns all come into play.  Abusive workplaces don't breed efficiency and the best work product over time.  Employees of such places jettison the employer at the earliest opportunity.  Creativity and innovation don't happen when your employees are dog-tired.  We need a better metric of success than how many hours were spent warming the chair at work.    

I don't want to be the patient of the surgeon who has been at work for three days straight with no rest, do you?  Let's reward the folks who produce high quality work on a consistent basis, not those who were simply physically there the longest unless they truly have the work product to show for it.  What did you accomplish today and was it done with appropriate speed for the task, of highest quality, done efficiently and cost-effectively for your customer?  What was the result of the time, however much or little that might have been spent on the task, and did it meet or, better yet, exceed the customer's expectations?  Did you do whatever was required to get the job done well and give a good day's work for the pay?  Those are the important questions to me.  The rest is a dubious bragging contest.  http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html

The road to success is paved with failure. It's hard to achieve much if you aren't willing to take calculated risks along the way and be willing to fail occasionally to get to success.  You can't learn to play the guitar well if you aren't willing to play any wrong notes in the process.  Calculated risk does not include playing the lottery and reasonably expecting to win.  Be smart about risk but be willing to put yourself out there and know you will fail probably multiple times and maybe even fail spectacularly if you want to achieve something special and out of the ordinary.  If you are in your comfort zone all or most of the time, you are unlikely to achieve or experience anything extraordinary.  Ask yourself whether anything memorable happens while you are sitting in your real or metaphoric easy chair?

Face your very real fear of failure.  No one can expect to be on a constantly upward climb. The economic downturn alone has proven this.  Life's path has many ups and downs. Get up, dust yourself off, make the appropriate adjustments and keep going. The alternative, doing the same old thing in the same old way no matter what, is not a very rewarding choice, is it?  Be willing to fail your way to success.
http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html 

Some people think an employment reference is required by law to be only name, rank, and serial number.  Others think anything true can be released in an employment reference.  Both are wrong, at least in Kansas.  Although many companies wisely choose to only release neutral information like dates of employment and last position held, others make different, riskier choices.  Truth is generally a defense in litigation over employment references, but even certain true information cannot be disclosed. Still, it costs a great deal of money to defend a case, even when you win.  Thus, the neutral reference option chosen by many companies.

Not everything true can be released.  Just one example is the release of medical information about an employee or ex-employee.  Releasing or not releasing information in a certain way or tone could be illegal  as well.  "That's all I'm going to say about him" or "no comment" is very different than "per company policy, we only release dates of employment and last position held for all employees here."  Many states (including Kansas) have reference statutes that provide either full or qualified immunity to employers if they follow the rules set forth therein. 

Other things to consider include who should be the reference-giver ("all calls routed to human resources" versus "any manager may respond"--you can probably identify which of the two has more liability potential,  requires more frequent training and results in less control by the employer).  To make sure your company is in compliance with the law, contact a qualified legal professional, not Wikipedia or your Uncle Pete (unless he is an employment lawyer licensed in your state). http://www.employmentlawman.com/monday-morning-musings.html