Independent workplace investigations

Workplace Investigations

Independent fact-finding into harassment, bullying, misconduct, respectful workplace complaints and governance concerns.

Understanding what happened

When important facts are disputed, an organization needs a process that tests the evidence rather than assumes an outcome. Rick Hartlen conducts workplace investigations across Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, with a defined mandate, an objective approach and clear reasons for the findings.

When this service may be appropriate

Harassment, bullying, discrimination or other misconduct is alleged
A complaint involves a senior leader, a board member or a governance-related conflict
Competing accounts or policy concerns require impartial fact-finding

Purpose

What this process supports

A mandate suited to the actual issues and decision-maker
A fair opportunity for participants to respond to relevant allegations
An evidence-based report that explains the findings and their limits

Process

Fair, objective and evidence-based

01
Mandate & scope
Clarify the allegations, applicable policies, questions to be answered, reporting recipient and scope. Discuss timing and any immediate concerns without promising a fixed outcome.
02
Independence
Review relationships and potential conflicts before accepting the engagement. Agree on who gives instructions and receives the report, separately from those whose conduct is under review.
03
Fair response
Explain the process and provide a fair opportunity to understand and respond to relevant allegations and information. Consider new information as it arises.
04
Interviews & records
Interview the complainant, respondent and relevant witnesses. Review documents, messages and other records within scope, and identify gaps or limitations.
05
Credibility & evidence
Assess competing accounts in context, including consistency, corroboration, reliability and other relevant evidence. Avoid deciding credibility on confidence or demeanour alone.
06
Report & next steps
Set out the mandate, process, evidence, analysis and findings in a reasoned report. Discuss practical next steps within the engagement; organizational decisions remain with the appropriate decision-maker.

Confidentiality has limits

Information is handled discreetly, but an investigation cannot promise absolute secrecy. Relevant information may need to be shared so participants can respond fairly, the authorized decision-maker can receive findings, or applicable obligations can be met. Reporting arrangements, access to the report and confidentiality expectations are discussed at the outset.