Investigations

Workplace Investigations

A workplace investigation is an objective, independent, and systematic process of uncovering facts about a particular incident that occurred at work. It involves carefully discussing a complaint or grievance for specific misconduct, policy violation, or unethical behavior to reach a final decision and determine the appropriate course of action. The success of this process lies in strict confidentiality, extensive documentation, and an impartial lens during the investigation period.

When concerns are reported to the Office of People Relations, the People Relations Consultant will determine if a workplace investigation is necessary in order to address the complaint, based on the nature and severity of the complaint and the information provided. In unique circumstances, the People Relations Consultant, in conjunction with the department will evaluate whether an administrative leave is appropriate in situations which are deemed to be egregious or a safety concern.

What follows is information about what to expect with a workplace investigation.

Workplace Investigation Roles

A workplace investigation generally includes the following roles:

Complainant: Individual(s) making the complaint.
Respondent: Individual(s) implicated or accused in the complaint.
Witness: A person who has knowledge of the events from personal observation or experience. Witnesses may be identified by the complainant and the respondent.
Investigator: The investigator should be an objective party. An investigation may be conducted by a People Relations Consultant, a department/unit administrator, a designated objective party, or a partnership.


NMSU reserves the right to take reasonable actions to investigate and address complaints and other workplace concerns brought to its attention, including reviewing systems and other sources of available evidence. If a staff member reporting a possible policy violation does not wish to pursue a complaint or proceed with an investigation, the University may nevertheless independently decide to investigate. In such situations, NMSU will not compel the staff member to participate as a complaining party but expects the staff member to provide all relevant information to an appropriate University authority.

Investigative Process

The exact steps involved in any given workplace investigation may vary based upon the specifics of the case. What follows is an example of steps taken in a typical workplace investigation, but note that the process could vary based on each specific case.

  1. The People Relations Consultant conducts an intake interview with the complainant and reviews supporting evidence, if provided. If the People Relations Consultant determines that an investigation is necessary, the People Relations Consultant will notify the complainant and the appropriate department leadership accordingly.
  2. If it is determined that an investigation is not necessary, the complainant will be notified. Other opportunities may be explored to help resolve the conflict or address the concern.
  3. The Investigator collects information by conducting interviews, gathering applicable documents/records, and reviewing video.
  4. The investigator interviews the respondent and collects any evidence offered.
  5. The investigator determines findings after reviewing information collected in the interviews and the evidence provided by participants or collected.
  6. The investigator prepares a confidential summary report and findings and communicates such to appropriate department/unit leadership along with recommendations for next steps. If the investigator is not an People Relations Consultant, the report will be provided to the Office of People Relations.
  7. The investigator, People Relations Consultant and the appropriate department/unit leader will collaborate on the appropriate action to take, if any.
  8. The complainant and respondent are notified that the investigation is closed, and whether or not the allegations were substantiated, or if there were findings.

 

Investigative Interviews

During investigation interviews, the complainant, respondent, and witnesses will have the opportunity to present information and material related to the situation. The investigator will ask questions related to the complaint, listen, ask clarifying questions and take notes. They will ask for the names of any other individuals who may have information or knowledge of the situation and about what happened. If necessary, the interviewee will also have the opportunity to respond to the information that will be relied upon and other information gathered.

Witness accounts are an excellent way of getting information, as they can uncover things that are critical to the case. After all, some records may not be able to capture fully what the witness has observed on the issue.

In order to protect the integrity of the investigation, the investigator will request that the information shared during the interview be kept confidential until the investigation concludes.

 

Photo of 3 people having a discussion. Only hands and tabletop are visible. Photo by Van Tay Media on Unsplash
rectangle made of dotted rows and columns

 

Timelines

The exact timeline is case-specific. Workplace investigations are approached as expeditiously as possible while completing the necessary due diligence. Complainants may contact the investigator to receive updates regarding the timeline. To meet requirements specified in the AFSCME Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Office of People Relations strives to complete investigations within 30 calendar days of acquiring the knowledge of the allegation/concern.

calendar icon

 

Evaluation

Once the information is gathered, the investigator reviews the materials presented to them. They may cross-examine the testimonies from the involved parties (complainant, respondent, and witnesses), find a common link or pattern among their statements, and identify and rule out inconsistencies. Ultimately, this rigorous process allows them to form an accurate, structured narrative of what truly happened in the incident.

Findings

The following burden of proof will be used to assist in the determination of findings as a result of an investigation conducted by the Office of People Relations:

Staff: Preponderance of the evidence
Faculty: Clear and convincing evidence

Note - When disciplinary action is proposed for discrimination prohibited by federal and state law,  matters which are investigated by the university’s Office of Institutional Equity, the burden of proof shall be preponderance of the evidence.

Definitions

Preponderance of the evidence: The greater weight of the evidence. To prove a fact by the greater weight of the evidence means one must be persuaded that what is sought to be proved is more probably true than not true. Evenly balanced evidence is not sufficient.
Clear and convincing evidence:

Evidence that makes the fact to be proven highly probable or reasonably certain. To prove a fact by clear and convincing evidence is evidence stronger than a “preponderance” and yet less than “beyond a reasonable doubt;” for evidence to be clear and convincing, it must instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder’s mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.

 

The People Relations Consultant will discuss the findings with the appropriate department/unit leadership and will provide consultation in determining appropriate next steps. Recommendations, which are generally provided regardless of the outcome of the investigation, may include but are not limited to, training, adjustments to protocol/procedures, a facilitated meeting/mediation, corrective action, etc.

The complainant and respondent are made aware of the findings and next steps as to each of them specifically, meaning that if the findings are substantiated and corrective action is sanctioned, the other party will not be made aware of the specifics.