HR AI Skill

Workplace Violation

Investigate and resolve policy violations, code of conduct breaches, and ethical misconduct. Use when handling allegations of harassment, discrimination, fraud, data breaches, or any code of conduct violation. Includes interim measures, disciplinary actions...

Policy Violation Investigations

Investigate and resolve workplace policy violations with thoroughness, fairness, and compliance.

Workflow

  1. Receive violation report (anonymous hotline, manager escalation, HR observation).
  2. Triage: Classify severity, determine immediate safety/interim actions needed.
  3. Assign investigator (internal HR, external investigator for serious cases).
  4. Conduct structured investigation: evidence gathering, interviews, documentation.
  5. Evaluate findings against company policy and applicable law.
  6. Recommend disciplinary action (if substantiated) or closure (if unsubstantiated).
  7. Communicate outcomes, implement disciplinary measures.
  8. Remediate systemic issues; update policies/training as needed.
  9. Monitor for retaliation and pattern prevention.

Violation Categories

VIOLATION CLASSIFICATION
=========================

CATEGORY A: ZERO TOLERANCE (Immediate action required)
  → Physical violence or threats of violence
  → Sexual assault or physical abuse
  → Illegal activity in the workplace
  → Gross fraud or embezzlement
  → Immediate separation recommended (subject to legal review)

CATEGORY B: SERIOUS VIOLATIONS (Formal investigation, likely significant discipline)
  → Sexual harassment
  → Discrimination (race, gender, age, religion, disability, etc.)
  → Retaliation against complainants
  → Serious bullying or intimidation
  → Data privacy breaches
  → Confidential information leaks
  → Safety violations endangering others
  → Likely outcomes: Final warning, demotion, or separation

CATEGORY C: MODERATE VIOLATIONS (Investigation, progressive discipline)
  → Minor harassment or inappropriate comments
  → Repeated attendance/punctuality issues
  → Insubordination
  → Misuse of company resources
  → Minor safety violations
  → Time and attendance fraud
  → Likely outcomes: Written warning, performance improvement plan

CATEGORY D: MINOR VIOLATIONS (Coaching and guidance)
  → First-time dress code violations
  → Minor policy misunderstandings
  → Casual technology misuse (non-confidential)
  → Likely outcomes: Verbal warning, coaching conversation, policy education

Investigation Protocol

INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL
=======================

STEP 1: INTAKE AND TRIAGE (Day 0)
  → Log report in case management system
  → Assign unique case number
  → Triage severity using classification matrix
  → Determine: Is immediate interim action needed? (leave, no-contact, role change)
  → Notify: CHRO, legal counsel (for Categories A and B)
  → Assign: Internal investigator OR external investigator

STEP 2: INTERIM MEASURES (Day 0–1, if needed)
  Options:
    → Administrative leave (paid, neutral — not punitive)
    → Role reassignment (temporary, not demotion)
    → No-contact directive between parties
    → Workspace change
    → Technology access modification
  Communication to employee:
    → "As part of a routine process, we're making a temporary adjustment."
    → Do NOT characterize as punitive or indicate investigation findings

STEP 3: EVIDENCE GATHERING (Days 1–7)
  → Preserve all relevant electronic evidence (emails, chats, files, system logs)
  → Collect physical evidence (documents, photographs, surveillance if applicable)
  → Identify witnesses through preliminary review
  → Create evidence inventory and chain of custody
  → Secure evidence: Locked file (physical), restricted access (digital)

STEP 4: INTERVIEWS (Days 3–14)
  Order:
    1. Complainant/reporter (most detailed interview)
    2. Witnesses (least involved to most involved)
    3. Respondent (presented with allegations, given full opportunity to respond)
  Interview protocol:
    → Two investigators present (one leads, one takes notes)
    → Open-ended questions first, then follow-up for details
    → No leading questions, no suggesting answers
    → Allow breaks, provide water, maintain professional environment
    → Interview notes reviewed with interviewee for accuracy within 24 hours
    → Interviewee may add corrections or clarifications

STEP 5: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS (Days 14–21)
  → Review all evidence and interview notes
  → Evaluate credibility: Consistency, specificity, corroboration, timing, motive
  → Apply standard of proof: "Preponderance of evidence" (more likely than not)
  → Consider: Policy language, prior warnings, pattern of behavior
  → Draft investigation report: Findings, evidence summary, recommendation

STEP 6: DETERMINATION (Days 21–25)
  Possible outcomes:
    → Substantiated: Evidence supports the allegation
    → Not substantiated: Insufficient evidence to support the allegation
    → Partially substantiated: Some allegations supported, others not
    → Inconclusive: Evidence equally supports both sides
    → Unfounded: Allegation determined to be false (rare, requires clear evidence)

STEP 7: RESOLUTION (Days 25–30)
  → Communicate outcome to complainant (within confidentiality bounds)
  → Communicate findings and action to respondent
  → Implement disciplinary action (if applicable)
  → Document everything in case file
  → File with legal/compliance for regulatory reporting (if required)
  → Begin retaliation prevention monitoring

Disciplinary Action Matrix

DISCIPLINARY ACTION FRAMEWORK
==============================

Action level is determined by:
  → Severity of violation
  → Prior disciplinary history
  → Pattern of behavior (single incident vs. repeated)
  → Impact on others and the organization
  → Mitigating factors (remorse, cooperation, context)

PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE SPECTRUM:

ACTION             APPLICABLE FOR              EFFECT
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Verbal Warning     Minor, first-time           Documented conversation
                   violations                     Verbal warning on file 6 months

Written Warning    Moderate violations,        Formal written notice
                   repeat minor                     Placed in file 12 months
                   violations

Final Warning      Serious violations,         Last chance notice
                   repeat moderate                  Placed in file 24 months
                   violations                       Next infraction = separation

Demotion           Serious violations,         Reduction in title,
                   where retention is               responsibilities, compensation
                   preferred

Unpaid Suspension  Serious violations,         1–5 day paid or unpaid
                   between warning                  suspension
                   and separation

Separation         Category A violations,      Termination of employment
                   Category B after                 Final notice, exit process
                   final warning, repeated
                   serious violations

NOTE: Zero-tolerance violations (Category A) may skip progressive steps
      and go directly to separation, subject to legal and HR review.

Investigation Report Template

INVESTIGATION REPORT
=====================

Case #: [Number]
Date opened: [Date]
Date closed: [Date]
Investigator: [Name]
Classification: [Category A/B/C/D]

SUMMARY:
  [2–3 sentence summary of allegation, investigation scope, and outcome]

ALLEGATION:
  [Detailed description of reported violation — what, when, where, who]

INVESTIGATION SCOPE:
  [What was investigated, what was outside scope, limitations]

EVIDENCE REVIEWED:
  → [Document 1: Description, relevance]
  → [Document 2: Description, relevance]
  → [Electronic evidence: Description, dates]
  → [Witness testimony: Summary of key points]

INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED:
  → [Name/Role]: [Date], [Duration], [Key findings]
  → [Name/Role]: [Date], [Duration], [Key findings]
  → [Respondent]: [Date], [Duration], [Key findings]

FINDINGS:
  → [Fact 1: Supported by evidence — Yes/No]
  → [Fact 2: Supported by evidence — Yes/No]
  → [Fact 3: Supported by evidence — Yes/No]

CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT:
  → Complainant: [Consistent/Inconsistent, corroborated/not corroborated, specific/vague]
  → Respondent: [Cooperative/Uncooperative, consistent/inconsistent, plausible/not]
  → Witnesses: [Summary of credibility factors]

DETERMINATION:
  ☐ Substantiated
  ☐ Not substantiated
  ☐ Partially substantiated
  ☐ Inconclusive
  ☐ Unfounded

RATIONALE:
  [Detailed reasoning for determination, referencing evidence and policy]

RECOMMENDATION:
  [Recommended disciplinary action or resolution, with justification]

SYSTEMIC RECOMMENDATIONS:
  [Policy updates, training needs, cultural interventions, process improvements]

Investigator signature: ________________ Date: ________
Reviewed by (CHRO/Legal): ________________ Date: ________

Integration Points

Edge Cases