So I had a false allegation brought up against me by two employees who I've had previous disputes with.. I reported them to my old GM. They made sign a form consenting to a investigation. They made me write a statement. And they didn't tell what I was accused of. When I came back after being suspended. They immediately pulled me in the office. And told me I was terminated. The paper work said serious misconduct/ safety. I asked them what does this mean? Why am I being fired? And my GM never told me. I never knew the allegations. But some of my former coworkers told me. It was that I either threatened them or they felt intimidated by me. Is there anything I can do to appeal the decision considering the circumstances?
@AggressiveProgressive It's not a story, it was a question.. First of all you don't even have all of the details of what happened. So go waste your time somewhere else..
Every training I've ever completed says to interview the accused/subject LAST. Makes no sense to interview them first when you haven't talked to the complaining party or witnesses. This is the same for criminal investigations. How are you going to be strategic when you have no clue what you're investigating?
Thanks for the feedback @Belsnickel. I understand this is traditionally the approach and I feel it’s an ineffective approach. While of course the person making the claim will technically be the first interview, we interview the accused second for 2 reasons: 1) to give him/her the opportunity to provide context to the situation, and 2) allow him/her the opportunity to admit to the situation or incident. Workplace investigations are uncomfortable and disruptive for all involved, especially if you are the person being investigated. An accusation alone doesn’t make someone guilty. Advising the accused of your investigation, giving them the opportunity to be honest, and also reminding them that retaliation and interfering with an investigation early on in the process we have found are best practices.
@@cultureengineered great? But how are you able to potentially impeach them/catch them in a lie if you haven't interviewed everyone else that may have witnessed the incident? Very few people actually admit to wrong doing so I think this is quite naive. Unfortunate advice.
Don’t listen to this person. She’s wrong . The accused has a right to know the following before the investigation. 1. What is the complaint?. 2. Who made it? 3. When was it? 4. Where was it?…. This is basic procedural fairness. The accused also has the right to have some time to prepare for the meeting. Being ambushed is NOT acceptable.
@KGB Reviews- you seriously need to talk to an employment lawyer-unless you are unionized.
So I had a false allegation brought up against me by two employees who I've had previous disputes with.. I reported them to my old GM. They made sign a form consenting to a investigation. They made me write a statement. And they didn't tell what I was accused of. When I came back after being suspended. They immediately pulled me in the office. And told me I was terminated. The paper work said serious misconduct/ safety. I asked them what does this mean? Why am I being fired? And my GM never told me. I never knew the allegations. But some of my former coworkers told me. It was that I either threatened them or they felt intimidated by me. Is there anything I can do to appeal the decision considering the circumstances?
@AggressiveProgressive It's not a story, it was a question.. First of all you don't even have all of the details of what happened. So go waste your time somewhere else..
Volume is a bit low 🙂
Every training I've ever completed says to interview the accused/subject LAST. Makes no sense to interview them first when you haven't talked to the complaining party or witnesses. This is the same for criminal investigations. How are you going to be strategic when you have no clue what you're investigating?
Thanks for the feedback @Belsnickel. I understand this is traditionally the approach and I feel it’s an ineffective approach. While of course the person making the claim will technically be the first interview, we interview the accused second for 2 reasons: 1) to give him/her the opportunity to provide context to the situation, and 2) allow him/her the opportunity to admit to the situation or incident. Workplace investigations are uncomfortable and disruptive for all involved, especially if you are the person being investigated. An accusation alone doesn’t make someone guilty. Advising the accused of your investigation, giving them the opportunity to be honest, and also reminding them that retaliation and interfering with an investigation early on in the process we have found are best practices.
@@cultureengineered great? But how are you able to potentially impeach them/catch them in a lie if you haven't interviewed everyone else that may have witnessed the incident? Very few people actually admit to wrong doing so I think this is quite naive. Unfortunate advice.
@@tatiana.mp3that’s not how you want interview people. It’s an interview, not an interrogation or court trial.
Don’t listen to this person. She’s wrong . The accused has a right to know the following before the investigation. 1. What is the complaint?. 2. Who made it? 3. When was it? 4. Where was it?…. This is basic procedural fairness. The accused also has the right to have some time to prepare for the meeting. Being ambushed is NOT acceptable.
Sound annoyed me after 10 seconds