Canadian HR Strategy

24/CANADIAN HR STRATEGY and have every interest in seeing the target be successful and come out of this looking OK. So when you hire that independent individual who is known to be an established, experienced in- vestigator, a lot of those potential alle- gations are pre-empted." When the situation involves the C- suite, it's not appropriate, by and large, to conduct an internal investigation, says Williams. "It's very dif cult for human resources to conduct an impar- tial, unbiased investigation into such allegations without feeling some pressures, obviously, with respect to how they come to their ndings," she says. "Internally, you don't want it to be perceived that the ex- ecutive is getting any different treatment when facing such allegations, as any other employee would who's not at that level of responsibility." Williams cites one particular case where a CEO was facing serious, widespread allegations of sexual harassment. "He absolutely refused to bring in a third-party investiga- tor. And what did it lead to? It led to other members of the C-suite and senior executives who were in the know who felt they were being compromised, they were potentially at risk because they were sophisticated enough to recognize that they could be held liable for their knowledge and, perhaps, lack of action or condoning the conduct. So it absolutely created a mess and there were no policies that spoke to how such al- legations would be handled if they were made to senior-level executives within the organization." COMMUNICATIONS As for communications, it's best if the organization takes a stance, con rming and reiterating its abhorrence of or no-tol- erance approach to such misconduct, says Williams, "con rm- ing the fact that they are implementing their policies and thor- oughly investigating the allegations, and that the matter will be resolved appropriately in compliance with the law and with the internal processes and conduct expected of the organization." The company wants to come across as compassionate, com- petent and con dent, says Bernstein, meaning compassionate to whoever's involved, con dent that it's being handled cor- rectly, and competent in doing everything it can to cooperate with the investigation. And if rumours are already circulating, it's OK to remind people of company policy and to "have employee communica- tions say, 'Look, we know there's a lot of gossip around about John Smith's temporary leave of absence, and we just want you to know it's being handled, it won't affect your jobs, etcetera.' Everybody wants to know 'What does it mean to them?' and as soon as you assure them it doesn't mean much directly, then everybody goes back to work," he says. It's important the employer be as transparent as possible without going overboard, says Khan. "There's a ne line that has to be drawn — you want to be Bill Porter, CEO of Scotiabank harassment cases are seldom isolated — there are usually more cases that come out of the woodwork, says Bernstein. "In that case, the board of directors pretty much has to take control of the company." EXCUSE YOURSELF The executive involved should also excuse himself from the organization and be placed on administrative leave, says Wil- liams, "just so there isn't any resistance at that level or an execu- tive feeling they're above the law or above the rules and proce- dures of the organization… the best optic is to move the alleged harasser from the working environment." The fact that any employee may be placed on administrative suspension should be contemplated in the policies, she says. "It should already be socialized in the organization that putting someone on administrative suspension or administra- tive leave, pending the outcome of the investigation process, is in no way an admission of guilt — it's a process." But if the accused works in an of ce that is different from the complainant, they could conceivably both stay at work, says Khan. "If the complainant is off on a stress leave, you could have the accused continue to work because there is a presumption of innocence. Just because they have a complaint against them doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be a threat to others in the workplace." However, once a person has been named, it's impossible to continue a normal work environment, says Bernstein. "Depending on the board's con dence, the CEO may or may not continue to do some work from home, but you're go- ing to be sitting there being the centre of gossip every day until it's resolved so it makes it easier for everybody to do their work (at home), as well as sending a signal that 'We're treating this appropriately.'" INVESTIGATION When it comes to the investigation, the person selected as in- vestigator is extremely important, says Khan. "They've got to be experienced, competent and folks who know what they're doing," he says. "It sends a message to the CEO or the C-suite member who is the target of the allegations that 'OK, this is going to be dealt with at the highest level of professionalism.' It sends a message to the complainant, it sends a message to witnesses in the company as well that 'Hey, the employer's taking this seriously, they're not trying to do this on their own.'" The dif culty with having in-house people engaging in the investigation is if the results are challenged, people might say, "Well, you know, the investigation was awed, it was biased," says Khan. "(The problem is) people with a vested interest, who are friendly with the target or who report to the target "THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRETTY MUCH HAS TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE COMPANY."

• Cover
• front
• roundtable
• features
• back