--- name: workplace-violation description: 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, and remediation. Triggers on phrases like "policy violation", "code of conduct", "workplace misconduct", "ethical breach", "harassment complaint", "discrimination", "workplace violation", "conduct investigation", "disciplinary action", "code of ethics", "misconduct report". --- # 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 - Case management system: Investigation tracking and documentation - HRIS: Employee records, disciplinary history, separation processing - Legal/compliance: Consultation workflows, regulatory reporting - Evidence management: Document preservation, chain of custody - Communication tools: Secure, confidential notification channels - Analytics: Aggregate data for pattern detection and prevention ## Edge Cases - **Anonymous reports**: Investigate based on available evidence; limited ability to follow up with reporter - **External parties** (clients, vendors): Coordinate with legal; may involve external investigators - **Cross-border**: Different legal standards; local counsel required; jurisdiction-specific procedures - **High-volume patterns** (multiple complaints about same person): Expedited investigation; pattern analysis - **Investigator conflict of interest**: Recuse and reassign; document conflict - **Employee denies and claims retaliation**: Investigate both original allegation AND retaliation claim separately - **Media/legal discovery risk**: Enhanced documentation; legal review of all communications; public affairs coordination