Mixing
Do people being interviewed need to be informed they are part of an investigation?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I'm looking for some guidance, hopefully from a HR professional but any advice is appreciated; for context, this is in the UK so will be subject to our laws/guidelines.
I, along with many colleagues in my department, were recently 'interviewed' individually by a member of senior management. We were each told this was an informal discussion, and that all answers would be anonymous and confidential.
The purpose of the interviews was stated as to perform a 'baseline' of the mood of the organisation, and whether there were any concerns about attitudes.
It has recently been revealed that in reality, a member of the department had received a grievance notification against them and the true purpose of the interviews was to see if anyone would voluntarily substantiate the claims made therein.
I take issue with this approach, as;
- Participants were not informed their testimonies would be used in
a formal capacity - Participants were actively misled as to the nature of the discussion
- The questions asked were (in my experience) leading questions by nature, with long periods of silence held when no immediate answers were forthcoming
- No opportunity was extended to bring in a representative or 3rd party support/witness.
It has emerged that the senior manager's actions were sanctioned by HR; whats more, the head of our companies HR Department, meaning that should anyone take issue they would be seeking redress against the head of HR for their actions.
Is it possible that the investigation was performed in an unbefitting, or possibly legally dubious manner? While I am not the aggrieved party, I feel as though my testimony was gathered without my consent. Does 'anonymising' the feedback received go any way towards upholding confidentiality, or is the lack of disclosure (and statement of informality) mean confidentiality is not assured by certainty?
human-resources united-kingdom privacy
edited 38 mins ago
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398189
asked 2 hours ago
John Smith Optional
1694
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I'm looking for some guidance, hopefully from a HR professional but any advice is appreciated; for context, this is in the UK so will be subject to our laws/guidelines.
I, along with many colleagues in my department, were recently 'interviewed' individually by a member of senior management. We were each told this was an informal discussion, and that all answers would be anonymous and confidential.
The purpose of the interviews was stated as to perform a 'baseline' of the mood of the organisation, and whether there were any concerns about attitudes.
It has recently been revealed that in reality, a member of the department had received a grievance notification against them and the true purpose of the interviews was to see if anyone would voluntarily substantiate the claims made therein.
I take issue with this approach, as;
- Participants were not informed their testimonies would be used in
a formal capacity - Participants were actively misled as to the nature of the discussion
- The questions asked were (in my experience) leading questions by nature, with long periods of silence held when no immediate answers were forthcoming
- No opportunity was extended to bring in a representative or 3rd party support/witness.
It has emerged that the senior manager's actions were sanctioned by HR; whats more, the head of our companies HR Department, meaning that should anyone take issue they would be seeking redress against the head of HR for their actions.
Is it possible that the investigation was performed in an unbefitting, or possibly legally dubious manner? While I am not the aggrieved party, I feel as though my testimony was gathered without my consent. Does 'anonymising' the feedback received go any way towards upholding confidentiality, or is the lack of disclosure (and statement of informality) mean confidentiality is not assured by certainty?
human-resources united-kingdom privacy
edited 38 mins ago
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398189
asked 2 hours ago
John Smith Optional
1694
Do you know for a fact testimonies were used in a formal capacity?
– paparazzo
1 hour ago
A tricky issue !
– Fattie
57 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I'm looking for some guidance, hopefully from a HR professional but any advice is appreciated; for context, this is in the UK so will be subject to our laws/guidelines.
I, along with many colleagues in my department, were recently 'interviewed' individually by a member of senior management. We were each told this was an informal discussion, and that all answers would be anonymous and confidential.
The purpose of the interviews was stated as to perform a 'baseline' of the mood of the organisation, and whether there were any concerns about attitudes.
It has recently been revealed that in reality, a member of the department had received a grievance notification against them and the true purpose of the interviews was to see if anyone would voluntarily substantiate the claims made therein.
I take issue with this approach, as;
- Participants were not informed their testimonies would be used in
a formal capacity - Participants were actively misled as to the nature of the discussion
- The questions asked were (in my experience) leading questions by nature, with long periods of silence held when no immediate answers were forthcoming
- No opportunity was extended to bring in a representative or 3rd party support/witness.
It has emerged that the senior manager's actions were sanctioned by HR; whats more, the head of our companies HR Department, meaning that should anyone take issue they would be seeking redress against the head of HR for their actions.
Is it possible that the investigation was performed in an unbefitting, or possibly legally dubious manner? While I am not the aggrieved party, I feel as though my testimony was gathered without my consent. Does 'anonymising' the feedback received go any way towards upholding confidentiality, or is the lack of disclosure (and statement of informality) mean confidentiality is not assured by certainty?
human-resources united-kingdom privacy
edited 38 mins ago
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398189
asked 2 hours ago
John Smith Optional
1694
I'm looking for some guidance, hopefully from a HR professional but any advice is appreciated; for context, this is in the UK so will be subject to our laws/guidelines.
I, along with many colleagues in my department, were recently 'interviewed' individually by a member of senior management. We were each told this was an informal discussion, and that all answers would be anonymous and confidential.
The purpose of the interviews was stated as to perform a 'baseline' of the mood of the organisation, and whether there were any concerns about attitudes.
It has recently been revealed that in reality, a member of the department had received a grievance notification against them and the true purpose of the interviews was to see if anyone would voluntarily substantiate the claims made therein.
I take issue with this approach, as;
- Participants were not informed their testimonies would be used in
a formal capacity - Participants were actively misled as to the nature of the discussion
- The questions asked were (in my experience) leading questions by nature, with long periods of silence held when no immediate answers were forthcoming
- No opportunity was extended to bring in a representative or 3rd party support/witness.
It has emerged that the senior manager's actions were sanctioned by HR; whats more, the head of our companies HR Department, meaning that should anyone take issue they would be seeking redress against the head of HR for their actions.
Is it possible that the investigation was performed in an unbefitting, or possibly legally dubious manner? While I am not the aggrieved party, I feel as though my testimony was gathered without my consent. Does 'anonymising' the feedback received go any way towards upholding confidentiality, or is the lack of disclosure (and statement of informality) mean confidentiality is not assured by certainty?
human-resources united-kingdom privacy
human-resources united-kingdom privacy
edited 38 mins ago
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398189
asked 2 hours ago
John Smith Optional
1694
edited 38 mins ago
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398189
asked 2 hours ago
John Smith Optional
1694
edited 38 mins ago
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398189
edited 38 mins ago
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398189
edited 38 mins ago
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398189
43.9k1398189
asked 2 hours ago
John Smith Optional
1694
asked 2 hours ago
John Smith Optional
1694
asked 2 hours ago
John Smith Optional
1694
1694
Do you know for a fact testimonies were used in a formal capacity?
– paparazzo
1 hour ago
A tricky issue !
– Fattie
57 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Do you know for a fact testimonies were used in a formal capacity?
– paparazzo
1 hour ago
A tricky issue !
– Fattie
57 mins ago
Do you know for a fact testimonies were used in a formal capacity?
– paparazzo
1 hour ago
Do you know for a fact testimonies were used in a formal capacity?
– paparazzo
1 hour ago
A tricky issue !
– Fattie
57 mins ago
A tricky issue !
– Fattie
57 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
Is it possible that the investigation was performed in an unbefitting,
or possibly legally dubious manner?
I do not work in the UK and IANAL, but this sure seems devious and underhanded to me. And, based on the way this was handled, I would not be confident in the confidentiality aspect of it either.
Since you are not the aggrieved party, I am not certain what actions or outcome you are after other than perhaps to protect yourself from collateral damage. Unless you somehow feel at risk, your best bet is to let this situation die down and don't stir the pot further.
That being said, if you feel you need to do something, I think any next steps you are interested in taking probably should be done with the consultation of an attorney.
answered 2 hours ago
Mister Positive
57.3k29191234
2
Thanks for the answer, much appreciated. I suspect my discomfort stems from being an accessory to action taken against a colleague, and also a profound lack of confidence in my HR dept. I would be interested in what 'next steps' may be open to me.
– John Smith Optional
1 hour ago
"I do not work in the UK and IANAL" ...then why answer? The question has a pretty specific scope and random guessing isn't all that useful. OP knows it seems underhanded or he wouldn't have asked the question.
– Lilienthal♦
1 hour ago
@Lilienthal Because I had practical advise to offer that did not require either of those things. ( Being in the UK or being a lawyer ). The OP voted for the answer and commented that it helped, I assume you voted against the answer. I find that very interesting....
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@MisterPositive I did downvote it because ultimately while useful, you don't answer the clear question that the OP asked. While his comment does discuss next steps, the question is clearly asking about the legal specifics involved in a grievance procedure in the UK. A very specific topic to be sure but an interesting one that I'd like to see qualified answers on because like you the situation described feels off to me. But this and the other answers here don't address the core question at all.
– Lilienthal♦
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
a member of the department had received a grievance notification against them and the true purpose of the interviews was to see if anyone would voluntarily substantiate the claims made therein.
I'll call the person who made the grievance complaint the "complainer", and the person he complained about the "accused".
I can't speak to the legal aspects particularly, but I at least understand what the manager was trying to do. They wanted to know if the complaint they'd received was due to the complainer not liking the particular accused's style, or whether the accused was actually abusive in general.
The manager didn't want to prejudice your answers by saying they were investigating the accused, so they pretended to be asking about something else, to see if you'd bring up the accused at all.
Participants were not informed their testimonies would be used in a formal capacity
Well, they haven't been, as far as I can tell? It doesn't sound like anyone said anything about the accused, so that probably concludes this part of research by the manager, and it's down to a "he said / she said" between the complainer and the accused.
If anyone had spoken up against the accused, I hope the manager would have asked if they'd go on the record about the accused.
The questions asked were (in my experience) leading questions by nature, with long periods of silence held when no immediate answers were forthcoming
Hmmm. If the questions were leading, then I may be wrong about the manager trying not to prejudice your answers. But if you say there were long periods of silence when no answer was forthcoming, that doesn't sound like a leading question to me.
- A non-leading question would be: "Can you tell me what Mr Accused did on Monday the 7th of August?"
- A leading question would be: "Did Mr Accused hit you on Monday the 7th August in an unprovoked attack"
What I'm trying to say is that leading questions lend themselves to yes/no answers, so I'm slightly unsure as to whether you were asked leading questions or not.
No opportunity was extended to bring in a representative or 3rd party support/witness.
This is a legal right in disciplinary hearings. You weren't in a disciplinary hearing: you weren't in trouble. Therefore I think it is unlikely to be an issue. If you asked to stop so you could bring in a third party, and were refused, then it might be on shakier ground, but I see no suggestion from your question that this was the case.
answered 1 hour ago
AndyT
595712
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Who revealed the "true" nature of the interviews? Secondhand information or something concrete from management? Keep in mind whenever sudden interviews pop up, there are a few "tin foil" teammates that think there is some sort of ulterior motive behind the interviews. Over the years, I interviewed HR randomly with the rest of my team. There is one guy on the team who comes up with conspiracies ranging from we're going to be laid off, to somehow government taking over the company and starting Jade Helm operations of a UN take over by calming the staff down. It's wild. So unless you heard about it from HR, I wouldn't do anything.
Imagine if you went to HR and said, "I heard you interviewed me falsely to help your own lawsuit by figuring out if anyone else would help collaborate the individual filing the suit." And there isn't a lawsuit. You'd either be the laughingstock there or fired on the spot.
Think of it rationally. If there is a lawsuit, the lawyer for the person filing it would seek out teammates that could help. By HR figuring out individuals who can collaborate, they risk exposing that person and potentially aiding the person filing the suit. "I just got fired for knowing X, and now I'm helping person A."
answered 1 hour ago
Dan
4,2161819
add a comment |Â
StackExchange.ready(function ()
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
var showEditor = function()
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
;
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True')
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup(
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup)
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
)
else
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
showEditor();
);
);
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
Is it possible that the investigation was performed in an unbefitting,
or possibly legally dubious manner?
I do not work in the UK and IANAL, but this sure seems devious and underhanded to me. And, based on the way this was handled, I would not be confident in the confidentiality aspect of it either.
Since you are not the aggrieved party, I am not certain what actions or outcome you are after other than perhaps to protect yourself from collateral damage. Unless you somehow feel at risk, your best bet is to let this situation die down and don't stir the pot further.
That being said, if you feel you need to do something, I think any next steps you are interested in taking probably should be done with the consultation of an attorney.
answered 2 hours ago
Mister Positive
57.3k29191234
2
Thanks for the answer, much appreciated. I suspect my discomfort stems from being an accessory to action taken against a colleague, and also a profound lack of confidence in my HR dept. I would be interested in what 'next steps' may be open to me.
– John Smith Optional
1 hour ago
"I do not work in the UK and IANAL" ...then why answer? The question has a pretty specific scope and random guessing isn't all that useful. OP knows it seems underhanded or he wouldn't have asked the question.
– Lilienthal♦
1 hour ago
@Lilienthal Because I had practical advise to offer that did not require either of those things. ( Being in the UK or being a lawyer ). The OP voted for the answer and commented that it helped, I assume you voted against the answer. I find that very interesting....
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@MisterPositive I did downvote it because ultimately while useful, you don't answer the clear question that the OP asked. While his comment does discuss next steps, the question is clearly asking about the legal specifics involved in a grievance procedure in the UK. A very specific topic to be sure but an interesting one that I'd like to see qualified answers on because like you the situation described feels off to me. But this and the other answers here don't address the core question at all.
– Lilienthal♦
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Is it possible that the investigation was performed in an unbefitting,
or possibly legally dubious manner?
I do not work in the UK and IANAL, but this sure seems devious and underhanded to me. And, based on the way this was handled, I would not be confident in the confidentiality aspect of it either.
Since you are not the aggrieved party, I am not certain what actions or outcome you are after other than perhaps to protect yourself from collateral damage. Unless you somehow feel at risk, your best bet is to let this situation die down and don't stir the pot further.
That being said, if you feel you need to do something, I think any next steps you are interested in taking probably should be done with the consultation of an attorney.
answered 2 hours ago
Mister Positive
57.3k29191234
2
Thanks for the answer, much appreciated. I suspect my discomfort stems from being an accessory to action taken against a colleague, and also a profound lack of confidence in my HR dept. I would be interested in what 'next steps' may be open to me.
– John Smith Optional
1 hour ago
"I do not work in the UK and IANAL" ...then why answer? The question has a pretty specific scope and random guessing isn't all that useful. OP knows it seems underhanded or he wouldn't have asked the question.
– Lilienthal♦
1 hour ago
@Lilienthal Because I had practical advise to offer that did not require either of those things. ( Being in the UK or being a lawyer ). The OP voted for the answer and commented that it helped, I assume you voted against the answer. I find that very interesting....
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@MisterPositive I did downvote it because ultimately while useful, you don't answer the clear question that the OP asked. While his comment does discuss next steps, the question is clearly asking about the legal specifics involved in a grievance procedure in the UK. A very specific topic to be sure but an interesting one that I'd like to see qualified answers on because like you the situation described feels off to me. But this and the other answers here don't address the core question at all.
– Lilienthal♦
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Is it possible that the investigation was performed in an unbefitting,
or possibly legally dubious manner?
I do not work in the UK and IANAL, but this sure seems devious and underhanded to me. And, based on the way this was handled, I would not be confident in the confidentiality aspect of it either.
Since you are not the aggrieved party, I am not certain what actions or outcome you are after other than perhaps to protect yourself from collateral damage. Unless you somehow feel at risk, your best bet is to let this situation die down and don't stir the pot further.
That being said, if you feel you need to do something, I think any next steps you are interested in taking probably should be done with the consultation of an attorney.
answered 2 hours ago
Mister Positive
57.3k29191234
Is it possible that the investigation was performed in an unbefitting,
or possibly legally dubious manner?
I do not work in the UK and IANAL, but this sure seems devious and underhanded to me. And, based on the way this was handled, I would not be confident in the confidentiality aspect of it either.
Since you are not the aggrieved party, I am not certain what actions or outcome you are after other than perhaps to protect yourself from collateral damage. Unless you somehow feel at risk, your best bet is to let this situation die down and don't stir the pot further.
That being said, if you feel you need to do something, I think any next steps you are interested in taking probably should be done with the consultation of an attorney.
answered 2 hours ago
Mister Positive
57.3k29191234
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Mister Positive
57.3k29191234
answered 2 hours ago
Mister Positive
57.3k29191234
answered 2 hours ago
Mister Positive
57.3k29191234
57.3k29191234
2
Thanks for the answer, much appreciated. I suspect my discomfort stems from being an accessory to action taken against a colleague, and also a profound lack of confidence in my HR dept. I would be interested in what 'next steps' may be open to me.
– John Smith Optional
1 hour ago
"I do not work in the UK and IANAL" ...then why answer? The question has a pretty specific scope and random guessing isn't all that useful. OP knows it seems underhanded or he wouldn't have asked the question.
– Lilienthal♦
1 hour ago
@Lilienthal Because I had practical advise to offer that did not require either of those things. ( Being in the UK or being a lawyer ). The OP voted for the answer and commented that it helped, I assume you voted against the answer. I find that very interesting....
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@MisterPositive I did downvote it because ultimately while useful, you don't answer the clear question that the OP asked. While his comment does discuss next steps, the question is clearly asking about the legal specifics involved in a grievance procedure in the UK. A very specific topic to be sure but an interesting one that I'd like to see qualified answers on because like you the situation described feels off to me. But this and the other answers here don't address the core question at all.
– Lilienthal♦
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2
Thanks for the answer, much appreciated. I suspect my discomfort stems from being an accessory to action taken against a colleague, and also a profound lack of confidence in my HR dept. I would be interested in what 'next steps' may be open to me.
– John Smith Optional
1 hour ago
"I do not work in the UK and IANAL" ...then why answer? The question has a pretty specific scope and random guessing isn't all that useful. OP knows it seems underhanded or he wouldn't have asked the question.
– Lilienthal♦
1 hour ago
@Lilienthal Because I had practical advise to offer that did not require either of those things. ( Being in the UK or being a lawyer ). The OP voted for the answer and commented that it helped, I assume you voted against the answer. I find that very interesting....
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@MisterPositive I did downvote it because ultimately while useful, you don't answer the clear question that the OP asked. While his comment does discuss next steps, the question is clearly asking about the legal specifics involved in a grievance procedure in the UK. A very specific topic to be sure but an interesting one that I'd like to see qualified answers on because like you the situation described feels off to me. But this and the other answers here don't address the core question at all.
– Lilienthal♦
3 mins ago
2
2
Thanks for the answer, much appreciated. I suspect my discomfort stems from being an accessory to action taken against a colleague, and also a profound lack of confidence in my HR dept. I would be interested in what 'next steps' may be open to me.
– John Smith Optional
1 hour ago
Thanks for the answer, much appreciated. I suspect my discomfort stems from being an accessory to action taken against a colleague, and also a profound lack of confidence in my HR dept. I would be interested in what 'next steps' may be open to me.
– John Smith Optional
1 hour ago
"I do not work in the UK and IANAL" ...then why answer? The question has a pretty specific scope and random guessing isn't all that useful. OP knows it seems underhanded or he wouldn't have asked the question.
– Lilienthal♦
1 hour ago
"I do not work in the UK and IANAL" ...then why answer? The question has a pretty specific scope and random guessing isn't all that useful. OP knows it seems underhanded or he wouldn't have asked the question.
– Lilienthal♦
1 hour ago
@Lilienthal Because I had practical advise to offer that did not require either of those things. ( Being in the UK or being a lawyer ). The OP voted for the answer and commented that it helped, I assume you voted against the answer. I find that very interesting....
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@Lilienthal Because I had practical advise to offer that did not require either of those things. ( Being in the UK or being a lawyer ). The OP voted for the answer and commented that it helped, I assume you voted against the answer. I find that very interesting....
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@MisterPositive I did downvote it because ultimately while useful, you don't answer the clear question that the OP asked. While his comment does discuss next steps, the question is clearly asking about the legal specifics involved in a grievance procedure in the UK. A very specific topic to be sure but an interesting one that I'd like to see qualified answers on because like you the situation described feels off to me. But this and the other answers here don't address the core question at all.
– Lilienthal♦
3 mins ago
@MisterPositive I did downvote it because ultimately while useful, you don't answer the clear question that the OP asked. While his comment does discuss next steps, the question is clearly asking about the legal specifics involved in a grievance procedure in the UK. A very specific topic to be sure but an interesting one that I'd like to see qualified answers on because like you the situation described feels off to me. But this and the other answers here don't address the core question at all.
– Lilienthal♦
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
a member of the department had received a grievance notification against them and the true purpose of the interviews was to see if anyone would voluntarily substantiate the claims made therein.
I'll call the person who made the grievance complaint the "complainer", and the person he complained about the "accused".
I can't speak to the legal aspects particularly, but I at least understand what the manager was trying to do. They wanted to know if the complaint they'd received was due to the complainer not liking the particular accused's style, or whether the accused was actually abusive in general.
The manager didn't want to prejudice your answers by saying they were investigating the accused, so they pretended to be asking about something else, to see if you'd bring up the accused at all.
Participants were not informed their testimonies would be used in a formal capacity
Well, they haven't been, as far as I can tell? It doesn't sound like anyone said anything about the accused, so that probably concludes this part of research by the manager, and it's down to a "he said / she said" between the complainer and the accused.
If anyone had spoken up against the accused, I hope the manager would have asked if they'd go on the record about the accused.
The questions asked were (in my experience) leading questions by nature, with long periods of silence held when no immediate answers were forthcoming
Hmmm. If the questions were leading, then I may be wrong about the manager trying not to prejudice your answers. But if you say there were long periods of silence when no answer was forthcoming, that doesn't sound like a leading question to me.
- A non-leading question would be: "Can you tell me what Mr Accused did on Monday the 7th of August?"
- A leading question would be: "Did Mr Accused hit you on Monday the 7th August in an unprovoked attack"
What I'm trying to say is that leading questions lend themselves to yes/no answers, so I'm slightly unsure as to whether you were asked leading questions or not.
No opportunity was extended to bring in a representative or 3rd party support/witness.
This is a legal right in disciplinary hearings. You weren't in a disciplinary hearing: you weren't in trouble. Therefore I think it is unlikely to be an issue. If you asked to stop so you could bring in a third party, and were refused, then it might be on shakier ground, but I see no suggestion from your question that this was the case.
answered 1 hour ago
AndyT
595712
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
a member of the department had received a grievance notification against them and the true purpose of the interviews was to see if anyone would voluntarily substantiate the claims made therein.
I'll call the person who made the grievance complaint the "complainer", and the person he complained about the "accused".
I can't speak to the legal aspects particularly, but I at least understand what the manager was trying to do. They wanted to know if the complaint they'd received was due to the complainer not liking the particular accused's style, or whether the accused was actually abusive in general.
The manager didn't want to prejudice your answers by saying they were investigating the accused, so they pretended to be asking about something else, to see if you'd bring up the accused at all.
Participants were not informed their testimonies would be used in a formal capacity
Well, they haven't been, as far as I can tell? It doesn't sound like anyone said anything about the accused, so that probably concludes this part of research by the manager, and it's down to a "he said / she said" between the complainer and the accused.
If anyone had spoken up against the accused, I hope the manager would have asked if they'd go on the record about the accused.
The questions asked were (in my experience) leading questions by nature, with long periods of silence held when no immediate answers were forthcoming
Hmmm. If the questions were leading, then I may be wrong about the manager trying not to prejudice your answers. But if you say there were long periods of silence when no answer was forthcoming, that doesn't sound like a leading question to me.
- A non-leading question would be: "Can you tell me what Mr Accused did on Monday the 7th of August?"
- A leading question would be: "Did Mr Accused hit you on Monday the 7th August in an unprovoked attack"
What I'm trying to say is that leading questions lend themselves to yes/no answers, so I'm slightly unsure as to whether you were asked leading questions or not.
No opportunity was extended to bring in a representative or 3rd party support/witness.
This is a legal right in disciplinary hearings. You weren't in a disciplinary hearing: you weren't in trouble. Therefore I think it is unlikely to be an issue. If you asked to stop so you could bring in a third party, and were refused, then it might be on shakier ground, but I see no suggestion from your question that this was the case.
answered 1 hour ago
AndyT
595712
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
a member of the department had received a grievance notification against them and the true purpose of the interviews was to see if anyone would voluntarily substantiate the claims made therein.
I'll call the person who made the grievance complaint the "complainer", and the person he complained about the "accused".
I can't speak to the legal aspects particularly, but I at least understand what the manager was trying to do. They wanted to know if the complaint they'd received was due to the complainer not liking the particular accused's style, or whether the accused was actually abusive in general.
The manager didn't want to prejudice your answers by saying they were investigating the accused, so they pretended to be asking about something else, to see if you'd bring up the accused at all.
Participants were not informed their testimonies would be used in a formal capacity
Well, they haven't been, as far as I can tell? It doesn't sound like anyone said anything about the accused, so that probably concludes this part of research by the manager, and it's down to a "he said / she said" between the complainer and the accused.
If anyone had spoken up against the accused, I hope the manager would have asked if they'd go on the record about the accused.
The questions asked were (in my experience) leading questions by nature, with long periods of silence held when no immediate answers were forthcoming
Hmmm. If the questions were leading, then I may be wrong about the manager trying not to prejudice your answers. But if you say there were long periods of silence when no answer was forthcoming, that doesn't sound like a leading question to me.
- A non-leading question would be: "Can you tell me what Mr Accused did on Monday the 7th of August?"
- A leading question would be: "Did Mr Accused hit you on Monday the 7th August in an unprovoked attack"
What I'm trying to say is that leading questions lend themselves to yes/no answers, so I'm slightly unsure as to whether you were asked leading questions or not.
No opportunity was extended to bring in a representative or 3rd party support/witness.
This is a legal right in disciplinary hearings. You weren't in a disciplinary hearing: you weren't in trouble. Therefore I think it is unlikely to be an issue. If you asked to stop so you could bring in a third party, and were refused, then it might be on shakier ground, but I see no suggestion from your question that this was the case.
answered 1 hour ago
AndyT
595712
a member of the department had received a grievance notification against them and the true purpose of the interviews was to see if anyone would voluntarily substantiate the claims made therein.
I'll call the person who made the grievance complaint the "complainer", and the person he complained about the "accused".
I can't speak to the legal aspects particularly, but I at least understand what the manager was trying to do. They wanted to know if the complaint they'd received was due to the complainer not liking the particular accused's style, or whether the accused was actually abusive in general.
The manager didn't want to prejudice your answers by saying they were investigating the accused, so they pretended to be asking about something else, to see if you'd bring up the accused at all.
Participants were not informed their testimonies would be used in a formal capacity
Well, they haven't been, as far as I can tell? It doesn't sound like anyone said anything about the accused, so that probably concludes this part of research by the manager, and it's down to a "he said / she said" between the complainer and the accused.
If anyone had spoken up against the accused, I hope the manager would have asked if they'd go on the record about the accused.
The questions asked were (in my experience) leading questions by nature, with long periods of silence held when no immediate answers were forthcoming
Hmmm. If the questions were leading, then I may be wrong about the manager trying not to prejudice your answers. But if you say there were long periods of silence when no answer was forthcoming, that doesn't sound like a leading question to me.
- A non-leading question would be: "Can you tell me what Mr Accused did on Monday the 7th of August?"
- A leading question would be: "Did Mr Accused hit you on Monday the 7th August in an unprovoked attack"
What I'm trying to say is that leading questions lend themselves to yes/no answers, so I'm slightly unsure as to whether you were asked leading questions or not.
No opportunity was extended to bring in a representative or 3rd party support/witness.
This is a legal right in disciplinary hearings. You weren't in a disciplinary hearing: you weren't in trouble. Therefore I think it is unlikely to be an issue. If you asked to stop so you could bring in a third party, and were refused, then it might be on shakier ground, but I see no suggestion from your question that this was the case.
answered 1 hour ago
AndyT
595712
answered 1 hour ago
AndyT
595712
answered 1 hour ago
AndyT
595712
answered 1 hour ago
AndyT
595712
595712
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Who revealed the "true" nature of the interviews? Secondhand information or something concrete from management? Keep in mind whenever sudden interviews pop up, there are a few "tin foil" teammates that think there is some sort of ulterior motive behind the interviews. Over the years, I interviewed HR randomly with the rest of my team. There is one guy on the team who comes up with conspiracies ranging from we're going to be laid off, to somehow government taking over the company and starting Jade Helm operations of a UN take over by calming the staff down. It's wild. So unless you heard about it from HR, I wouldn't do anything.
Imagine if you went to HR and said, "I heard you interviewed me falsely to help your own lawsuit by figuring out if anyone else would help collaborate the individual filing the suit." And there isn't a lawsuit. You'd either be the laughingstock there or fired on the spot.
Think of it rationally. If there is a lawsuit, the lawyer for the person filing it would seek out teammates that could help. By HR figuring out individuals who can collaborate, they risk exposing that person and potentially aiding the person filing the suit. "I just got fired for knowing X, and now I'm helping person A."
answered 1 hour ago
Dan
4,2161819
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Who revealed the "true" nature of the interviews? Secondhand information or something concrete from management? Keep in mind whenever sudden interviews pop up, there are a few "tin foil" teammates that think there is some sort of ulterior motive behind the interviews. Over the years, I interviewed HR randomly with the rest of my team. There is one guy on the team who comes up with conspiracies ranging from we're going to be laid off, to somehow government taking over the company and starting Jade Helm operations of a UN take over by calming the staff down. It's wild. So unless you heard about it from HR, I wouldn't do anything.
Imagine if you went to HR and said, "I heard you interviewed me falsely to help your own lawsuit by figuring out if anyone else would help collaborate the individual filing the suit." And there isn't a lawsuit. You'd either be the laughingstock there or fired on the spot.
Think of it rationally. If there is a lawsuit, the lawyer for the person filing it would seek out teammates that could help. By HR figuring out individuals who can collaborate, they risk exposing that person and potentially aiding the person filing the suit. "I just got fired for knowing X, and now I'm helping person A."
answered 1 hour ago
Dan
4,2161819
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Who revealed the "true" nature of the interviews? Secondhand information or something concrete from management? Keep in mind whenever sudden interviews pop up, there are a few "tin foil" teammates that think there is some sort of ulterior motive behind the interviews. Over the years, I interviewed HR randomly with the rest of my team. There is one guy on the team who comes up with conspiracies ranging from we're going to be laid off, to somehow government taking over the company and starting Jade Helm operations of a UN take over by calming the staff down. It's wild. So unless you heard about it from HR, I wouldn't do anything.
Imagine if you went to HR and said, "I heard you interviewed me falsely to help your own lawsuit by figuring out if anyone else would help collaborate the individual filing the suit." And there isn't a lawsuit. You'd either be the laughingstock there or fired on the spot.
Think of it rationally. If there is a lawsuit, the lawyer for the person filing it would seek out teammates that could help. By HR figuring out individuals who can collaborate, they risk exposing that person and potentially aiding the person filing the suit. "I just got fired for knowing X, and now I'm helping person A."
answered 1 hour ago
Dan
4,2161819
Who revealed the "true" nature of the interviews? Secondhand information or something concrete from management? Keep in mind whenever sudden interviews pop up, there are a few "tin foil" teammates that think there is some sort of ulterior motive behind the interviews. Over the years, I interviewed HR randomly with the rest of my team. There is one guy on the team who comes up with conspiracies ranging from we're going to be laid off, to somehow government taking over the company and starting Jade Helm operations of a UN take over by calming the staff down. It's wild. So unless you heard about it from HR, I wouldn't do anything.
Imagine if you went to HR and said, "I heard you interviewed me falsely to help your own lawsuit by figuring out if anyone else would help collaborate the individual filing the suit." And there isn't a lawsuit. You'd either be the laughingstock there or fired on the spot.
Think of it rationally. If there is a lawsuit, the lawyer for the person filing it would seek out teammates that could help. By HR figuring out individuals who can collaborate, they risk exposing that person and potentially aiding the person filing the suit. "I just got fired for knowing X, and now I'm helping person A."
answered 1 hour ago
Dan
4,2161819
answered 1 hour ago
Dan
4,2161819
answered 1 hour ago
Dan
4,2161819
answered 1 hour ago
Dan
4,2161819
4,2161819
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f119855%2fdo-people-being-interviewed-need-to-be-informed-they-are-part-of-an-investigatio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Do you know for a fact testimonies were used in a formal capacity?
– paparazzo
1 hour ago
A tricky issue !
– Fattie
57 mins ago