The HR Investigations Podcast

Suspected FMLA misuse can create operational challenges, but a poorly handled investigation can create additional legal exposure. Natalie Ivey explains how HR can investigate potential leave abuse using existing business records, focused interviews, and appropriate FMLA procedures—without automatically resorting to surveillance or a private investigator. In this episode: How to define a specific, investigable allegation. Which authorized records to review first. Why an employee's outside activities do not automatically prove fraud. How to interview an employee without prejudging the outcome. When formal FMLA certification procedures may be appropriate. What Scruggs v. Carrier Corporation and Parker v. CSX Transportation, Inc. teach about investigative quality. How to document findings and make a defensible decision. Key takeaway: Employers can investigate credible concerns about potential FMLA abuse, but the investigation must be reasonable, evidence-based, and respectful of protected leave rights. Resources: U.S. Department of Labor, FMLA Employee Notice Requirements U.S. Department of Labor, FMLA Frequently Asked Questions Scruggs v. Carrier Corporation (7th Cir. 2012) Parker v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (N.D. Ala. 2021) Connect with RPC Human Resources: www.rpchr.com Suggested call to action: Does your HR team have a consistent process for investigating suspected leave abuse? Contact RPC Human Resources to discuss practical workplace investigations training. Suggested keywords: FMLA abuse, FMLA fraud, workplace investigations, employee leave, HR compliance, evidence gathering, employee interviews, leave administration, employee relations. Disclaimer: This episode provides general educational information, not legal advice. FMLA requirements and the legality of investigative methods depend on the facts and applicable law. Consult qualified employment counsel regarding specific situations.   Natalie’s Upcoming Virtual Workshop: December 8-9, 2026 11:00 am – 5:00 pm ET Live, 2-day virtual format REGISTER HERE This hands-on workshop is designed for HR professionals who want practical tools—not theory. We cover intake, planning, interviews, documentation, credibility assessments, and investigation findings, with real-world scenarios throughout. If you’re responsible for handling internal investigations—or advising leaders on discipline and terminations—this is exactly the type of issue we work through in my upcoming two-day virtual investigations workshop, How to Conduct Internal Investigations: A Practical Workshop for HR Professionals, happening December 8-9, 2026, from 11:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern. We focus on real situations and how to investigate them in a way that holds up under scrutiny. Register now to take advantage of early bird bonuses  REGISTER NOW Subscribe & Connect If you found this episode helpful, be sure to subscribe, rate, and share The HR Investigations Podcast with a colleague who handles employee relations or investigations. New episodes drop regularly with practical guidance for HR professionals navigating complex workplace issues.  

What should HR do when an employee discloses a disability during a disciplinary meeting? In this episode, Natalie Ivey explains how to respond without abandoning legitimate performance management or overlooking the employer's obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Learn how to distinguish performance accountability from accommodation obligations, preserve documentation, protect medical confidentiality, and guide managers through a sensitive employee relations issue. In this episode: Why the timing of a disclosure is not proof of bad faith. When an employee's statement may trigger the accommodation process. How to preserve performance documentation. What medical information an employer may reasonably request. How to balance legitimate conduct standards with reasonable accommodation. Five common mistakes that create unnecessary risk. Key takeaway: A disability disclosure does not automatically erase prior performance concerns, but it must be handled through an appropriate, individualized process. Resources: EEOC, Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the ADA EEOC, Applying Performance and Conduct Standards to Employees with Disabilities Connect with RPC Human Resources: www.rpchr.com Is your management team prepared to respond appropriately when an employee raises a disability or accommodation issue? Contact RPC Human Resources to discuss practical leadership, compliance, and employee relations training.  

The complainant says one thing. The Subject/Respondent says something completely different. Five witnesses give you five different versions of what happened. Now what? Conflicting accounts are one of the most challenging—and most common—aspects of workplace investigations. In this episode of The HR Investigations Podcast, Natalie Ivey discusses how investigators can evaluate competing versions of events without prematurely deciding who is telling the truth. The goal isn't to determine whose story you like best. It's to determine what the evidence actually supports. In This Episode, We Discuss: Why conflicting testimony does not mean an investigation has failed How to build a timeline to test competing accounts The importance of separating observable facts from interpretations How to evaluate credibility without relying on confidence, personality, or personal impressions Factors investigators should consider when assessing credibility, including consistency, corroboration, motive, and whether a witness acknowledges facts that aren't favorable to them How confirmation bias can influence an investigator's conclusions How to test a respondent's explanation rather than simply accepting or rejecting it The role of emails, text messages, meeting records, chat messages, documents, and other evidence in corroborating—or challenging—witness testimony Why investigators shouldn't overstate what the evidence proves How to handle situations where you cannot determine exactly what was said or what happened Why an investigation may support some aspects of an allegation but not others How to make findings that accurately reflect the evidence rather than forcing the evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion A Key Investigative Principle When accounts conflict, investigators don't necessarily have to determine every detail with absolute certainty. Instead, the investigator should ask: What does the available evidence establish? That may mean finding that a specific statement cannot be substantiated while determining that other conduct did occur. Breaking allegations into separate issues can result in findings that are more accurate, defensible, and useful to the organization. The fundamental principle is simple: Don't make the evidence fit the allegation. Make the finding fit the evidence. For HR & Employee Relations Leaders If your HR or Employee Relations team is responsible for conducting workplace investigations, having a consistent investigative process is critical. RPC Human Resources partners with organizations to provide practical, HRCI- and SHRM-approved workplace investigations training for HR and Employee Relations teams. Training options include: 1-Day Investigations Training — 6 contact hours 2-Day Investigations Training — 12 contact hours Available virtually or on-site for your organization If you have 2026 training budget that needs to be used before year-end, RPC Human Resources still has a limited number of mid-week December dates available. Those dates are expected to fill by the end of October. And if Q4 isn't realistic for your organization, start planning now for 2027. Training programs are typically booked several months in advance, and RPC Human Resources is currently scheduling organizations for February and March 2027. Don't wait until the next investigation exposes a training gap. Think strategically about your team's capabilities, your remaining training budget, and your 2027 priorities. Visit rpchr.com/contact to start a conversation about bringing investigations training to your HR or Employee Relations team. About the Podcast The HR Investigations Podcast provides practical guidance for HR professionals who conduct, manage, or oversee workplace investigations. Hosted by Natalie Ivey, MBA, SPHR, SHRM-SCP, the podcast explores the real-world challenges investigators face—from interviewing and credibility assessments to evidence, documentation, legal considerations, and making defensible findings. The best investigation is the one you don't have to do.  

Politics can be a deeply personal subject—and when political disagreements enter the workplace, conversations can quickly escalate into arguments, accusations of harassment, threats, intimidation, or even potential workplace-violence concerns. For HR professionals and workplace investigators, the challenge isn't determining whose political beliefs are right or wrong. The investigator's job is to determine what happened, what workplace policies and legal protections may apply, and whether the conduct crossed a line that the organization can or should address. In this episode of The HR Investigations Podcast, we examine how to investigate politically charged workplace conflicts while maintaining neutrality, protecting employee rights, and reducing organizational risk. What We'll Cover Political arguments and workplace disruption Threats, intimidation, and workplace-violence concerns Offensive language and protected-class issues Witness interviews and credibility Evidence preservation Protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act Applying workplace policies consistently Avoiding investigator bias Making defensible findings and disciplinary recommendations Don't Investigate the Politics—Investigate the Conduct One of the biggest challenges in politically charged investigations is separating the employee's viewpoint from the employee's conduct. An employee's political beliefs, by themselves, may not be a workplace violation. But the way an employee expresses those beliefs can raise legitimate workplace concerns. Investigators should focus on questions such as: What was actually said? What was actually done? Who initiated the interaction? Who escalated it? Did anyone attempt to end the conversation? Were threats or intimidating statements made? Was there physical contact? Was work disrupted? Did the conduct involve a protected characteristic? What workplace policy applies? The fact that an investigator personally agrees or disagrees with an employee's political position should have no bearing on the investigative findings. Investigate the behavior—not the belief. When Politics Overlaps With Protected Activity Another important consideration is whether the conversation involved protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB recognizes that employees may have legal protection when they act together—or seek to act together—to address workplace issues such as wages, benefits, safety, scheduling, and other terms and conditions of employment. That means an investigator should not automatically assume that a heated workplace discussion is simply a "political argument." Ask: Were employees discussing a workplace issue? Were they acting together? Was an employee speaking on behalf of coworkers? Were they bringing a group concern to management? Were they attempting to initiate or prepare for group action? At the same time, protected activity is not a blanket protection for all conduct occurring during a workplace dispute. Serious misconduct, threats, violence, or other circumstances may require separate analysis. The context matters. Threats and Workplace Violence A political argument requires additional attention when an employee alleges threats or intimidation. Investigators should determine exactly what occurred rather than relying on labels such as "threatened," "bullied," or "intimidated." Ask: What exact words were used? Who heard them? Was the statement directed at a specific person? Was physical harm threatened? Was a weapon mentioned or displayed? Was there physical contact? Did the employee attempt to leave or end the interaction? Were there witnesses or electronic communications supporting the allegation? If there is an immediate safety concern, employee safety takes priority over completing the investigation. Appropriate interim measures may need to be considered while the facts are being investigated. Evidence Matters Political disputes often generate electronic evidence, including: Emails Text messages Teams or Slack messages Social media posts Screenshots Photographs Security footage Written complaints Witness statements Investigators should preserve relevant evidence promptly and look at the entire communication or interaction, rather than relying on an isolated sentence or screenshot. Context can make a significant difference in understanding what actually happened. Interviewing the Parties and Witnesses When interviewing the complainant, subject, and witnesses, investigators should use neutral, fact-based questions. Instead of asking: "Did Tom threaten Sarah?"          ask: "Tell me what you observed." Then follow up: What did you hear? What did you see? What happened immediately before the interaction? What happened afterward? What exact words do you remember? Who else was present? Did you observe physical contact? Did either person attempt to end the conversation? The goal is to obtain firsthand facts, not conclusions or assumptions. Consistent Discipline If the investigation substantiates misconduct, the organization should also consider whether comparable employees have been treated consistently. Ask: Have other employees engaged in similar conduct? What policies were applied? What disciplinary action was taken? Are there meaningful differences between the situations? Is there evidence that the employee is being treated differently because of protected activity? Consistency does not necessarily mean identical discipline in every case. The relevant question is whether the organization is applying its policies fairly based on the facts and circumstances of each situation. The Investigator's Checklist Before finalizing a politically charged investigation, ask: ☐ What actually happened? ☐ What evidence supports each version of events? ☐ Did I interview the appropriate witnesses? ☐ Did I preserve relevant evidence? ☐ Did I investigate the complete context? ☐ Could protected-class issues be involved? ☐ Could protected concerted activity be involved? ☐ Are there threats or workplace-violence concerns? ☐ What policy applies? ☐ Have comparable situations been handled consistently? ☐ Can I explain my findings based on the evidence rather than my personal opinion? The Bottom Line When politics turns into a workplace fight, don't investigate the politics. Investigate the conduct. Focus on the facts, understand the context, identify the applicable policies and legal protections, preserve the evidence, interview witnesses objectively, and apply workplace standards consistently. That's how investigators maintain neutrality—and produce findings that are more defensible for both the employee and the organization. Continue Your Professional Development With RPC Human Resources Want to become more confident conducting workplace investigations and handling difficult Employee Relations issues? RPC Human Resources provides practical, real-world training designed to help HR professionals, investigators, managers, and Employee Relations professionals build the skills they need to navigate complex workplace situations. From internal investigations and HR compliance to leadership and Employee Relations, RPC's continuing-education programs focus on what HR professionals need to know—and, more importantly, what they need to know how to do. Ready to sharpen your HR skills? Visit RPCHR.com to explore upcoming programs, dates, continuing-education credits, and registration information. Don't just know HR. Know how to handle it. Visit RPCHR.com and explore our upcoming events and continuing-education programs. About The HR Investigations Podcast The HR Investigations Podcast provides practical insights for HR professionals who conduct, manage, or support workplace investigations. Because when a difficult employee-relations issue lands on your desk, you need more than a policy manual. You need to know how to investigate it. The best investigation is the one you don't have to do. This podcast is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Topics: Political beliefs vs. protected characteristics Supervisor bias Comparator evidence Investigating promotion decisions Assignment and scheduling disparities Public-sector considerations Why HR should investigate conduct rather than political ideology Investigation checklist: What specific employment action is being challenged? Who made the decision? What reason was given? Is the reason documented? Was it consistently applied? Were similarly situated employees treated differently? Did political beliefs intersect with a protected characteristic? Does state/local law provide additional protection? Did retaliation occur? Legal note for show notes: This episode provides general educational information, not legal advice. Political-affiliation protections vary by jurisdiction and employment sector. Federal EEO statutes enforced by the EEOC generally do not list political affiliation as a protected category.  Resources  Book: How to Conduct Internal Investigations: A Practical Guide for Human Resource Professionals Available now on Amazon This book provides step-by-step guidance, real-world examples, and best practices for conducting defensible workplace investigations. Natalie’s Upcoming Virtual Workshop: September 29-30, 2026 11:00 am – 5:00 pm ET Live, 2-day virtual format REGISTER HERE This hands-on workshop is designed for HR professionals who want practical tools—not theory. We cover intake, planning, interviews, documentation, credibility assessments, and investigation findings, with real-world scenarios throughout. If you’re responsible for handling internal investigations—or advising leaders on discipline and terminations—this is exactly the type of issue we work through in my upcoming two-day virtual investigations workshop, How to Conduct Internal Investigations: A Practical Workshop for HR Professionals, happening September 29-30, 2026, from 11:00 am to 5:00 am Eastern. We focus on real situations and how to investigate them in a way that holds up under scrutiny. Register now to take advantage of early bird bonuses  REGISTER NOW Subscribe & Connect If you found this episode helpful, be sure to subscribe, rate, and share The HR Investigations Podcast with a colleague who handles employee relations or investigations. New episodes drop regularly with practical guidance for HR professionals navigating complex workplace issues.

In this episode: Why Natalie took a two-month break Why investigations remain one of the most important HR risk-management tools The difference between investigating facts and deciding punishment Why conflicting stories require a structured investigation What's coming in the next several episodes Key takeaway: An investigation isn't about deciding who is right before you gather the evidence. It's about determining what happened and whether the evidence supports the allegations. Resources  Book: How to Conduct Internal Investigations: A Practical Guide for Human Resource Professionals Available now on Amazon This book provides step-by-step guidance, real-world examples, and best practices for conducting defensible workplace investigations. Natalie’s Upcoming Virtual Workshop: September 29-30, 2026 11:00 am – 5:00 pm ET Live, 2-day virtual format REGISTER HERE This hands-on workshop is designed for HR professionals who want practical tools—not theory. We cover intake, planning, interviews, documentation, credibility assessments, and investigation findings, with real-world scenarios throughout. If you’re responsible for handling internal investigations—or advising leaders on discipline and terminations—this is exactly the type of issue we work through in my upcoming two-day virtual investigations workshop, How to Conduct Internal Investigations: A Practical Workshop for HR Professionals, happening September 29-30, 2026, from 11:00 am to 5:00 am Eastern. We focus on real situations and how to investigate them in a way that holds up under scrutiny. Register now to take advantage of early bird bonuses  REGISTER NOW Subscribe & Connect If you found this episode helpful, be sure to subscribe, rate, and share The HR Investigations Podcast with a colleague who handles employee relations or investigations. New episodes drop regularly with practical guidance for HR professionals navigating complex workplace issues.    

Episode Summary Most workplace investigations don't begin with a complaint to HR. They begin much earlier—with a manager's first conversation about attendance concerns, performance issues, behavioral challenges, or employee conflict. Those early conversations often determine whether an issue is resolved quickly, escalates into a formal complaint, or eventually requires an HR investigation. In this episode of The HR Investigations Podcast, Natalie Ivey sits down with Leshya Sukhu, Founder of NexusAlly, to discuss one of the most overlooked risk points in organizations: the moment a manager first recognizes a potential employee issue. Together, they explore why managers frequently struggle in these situations, how inconsistent responses create organizational risk, and what organizations can do to better support frontline leaders before issues escalate. The conversation also examines the growing role of artificial intelligence in HR and management support, including how AI can provide real-time guidance, conversation coaching, documentation assistance, and escalation support without replacing human judgment. Whether you're an HR professional, employee relations leader, investigator, or people manager, this episode offers practical insights into preventing workplace issues before they become formal HR matters. In This Episode, You'll Learn Why Most Workplace Issues Start Before HR Gets Involved The critical role managers play during the earliest stages of employee concerns Why seemingly small conversations can significantly impact future outcomes How manager confidence affects employee trust and organizational risk Where Manager-HR Breakdowns Commonly Occur Communication gaps between managers and HR Why managers often hesitate to address concerns early The impact of inconsistent leadership responses across teams The Business Case for Early Intervention How proactive conversations reduce investigations and employee relations issues The connection between early intervention and risk mitigation Why prevention is often more effective than remediation Common Mistakes Managers Make During Difficult Conversations Overreacting to employee concerns Underreacting to potential problems Delaying necessary discussions Poor documentation practices Avoiding uncomfortable conversations altogether The Future of Manager Support How AI can reinforce training in the moment of need Real-time coaching and conversation prompts Documentation guidance and escalation recommendations Using trauma-informed and empathetic communication techniques Building More Consistent Leadership Practices Creating repeatable approaches to employee concerns Supporting managers without increasing HR workload Improving outcomes for employees, managers, and organizations Key Takeaways ✔ HR risk often begins long before a formal complaint is filed. ✔ The quality of a manager's first conversation can significantly influence future employee relations outcomes. ✔ Organizations that support managers earlier often experience fewer escalations, more consistency, and stronger workplace cultures. ✔ Training alone is rarely enough; managers need support tools they can access when difficult situations arise. ✔ Responsible AI has the potential to enhance manager effectiveness by providing real-time guidance, documentation support, and escalation pathways. ✔ Better manager conversations today can prevent investigations tomorrow. About Our Guest Leshya Sukhu Leshya Mehta-Sukhu is the founder of NexusAlly, an independent venture shaped by her more than 20 years of experience in Employee Relations, workplace investigations, ethics, compliance, and HR risk. Throughout her career, Leshya has worked closely with managers, HR teams, and leaders during some of the most sensitive moments in the workplace. What she saw again and again was that workplace concerns rarely begin as formal investigations. They usually start much earlier, with a manager unsure how to respond, an employee wondering whether they will be heard, or an HR team trying to guide leaders before an issue escalates. That early space became the focus for NexusAlly: the moment before trust breaks down, risk increases, or HR is forced into a reactive position. NexusAlly helps managers, HR teams, and workplace consultants respond to early employee concerns with more consistency, confidence, and care. The platform brings together practical conversation guidance, emotional intelligence support, state-by-state guidance, escalation pathways, team visibility, and documentation tools to help address concerns earlier and reduce risk without losing the human side of the work. Natalie and Leshya first worked together when RPC Human Resources delivered customized workplace investigations training for Leshya's team during her tenure at Dycom, resulting in measurable improvements in investigation quality, consistency, and risk management practices. Offer: For a limited time, NexusAlly is inviting workplace consultants, HR consultants, fractional HR leaders, and Employee Relations professionals to join Employee Relations IRL — a practitioner community for future-ready Employee Relations. Members will receive early access to the NexusAlly consultant model, a first look at the platform, and a 10% referral opportunity for qualified client introductions that become paid engagements. Book an introductory conversation by July 31, 2026 to explore Employee Relations IRL and the NexusAlly 10% referral opportunity. https://nexusally.co/consultant-partners   About The HR Investigations Podcast Hosted by Natalie Ivey, The HR Investigations Podcast explores the realities of workplace investigations, employee relations challenges, compliance risks, and leadership practices that help organizations prevent issues before they require formal intervention. Natalie's philosophy is simple: "The best investigation is the one you don't have to do." Each episode delivers practical insights for HR professionals, employee relations leaders, investigators, and organizational decision-makers seeking to create safer, more compliant, and more effective workplaces. Connect Learn More About NexusAlly https://nexusally.co/ Learn More About RPC Human Resources Visit RPC Human Resources at rpchr.com for workplace investigations training, investigator certificate programs, leadership development, and HR compliance education. Subscribe Be sure to subscribe to The HR Investigations Podcast so you never miss an episode focused on reducing workplace risk and strengthening organizational culture.  

In this episode you'll learn: Why the best response to a steward's request for a private consultation is often the simplest one. How granting a short recess can actually strengthen the credibility of your investigation. Why allowing consultation does not mean management loses control of the interview. Practical ways to establish reasonable time limits and expectations before the interview resumes. How to distinguish legitimate representation from repeated interruptions that begin to obstruct the investigation. Professional language investigators can use when breaks become excessive. Common employer mistakes that frequently lead to unnecessary labor-management conflict. How experienced investigators maintain neutrality, professionalism, and momentum throughout difficult interviews. Key Topics Covered Respecting Weingarten Rights While Managing the Investigation Employees represented by a union have important rights during investigatory interviews that may result in discipline. However, those rights exist alongside an employer's responsibility to conduct an effective workplace investigation. This episode explains how those responsibilities work together rather than compete with one another. The Investigator's First Response Matters The way management responds to a steward's first request for a private consultation often sets the tone for the remainder of the interview. Learn why calm, professional responses typically reduce conflict and encourage cooperation. Maintaining Control Without Appearing Adversarial Experienced investigators know they can: Set reasonable break lengths. Establish when the interview will resume. Keep the investigation moving. Prevent unnecessary delays while respecting employee rights. Recognizing When Representation Becomes Obstruction Most union representatives exercise their role professionally. Occasionally, however, repeated requests for lengthy consultations may begin to interfere with the employer's ability to complete the investigation. Learn how to address these situations without escalating tensions. Avoiding Common Management Mistakes The episode also discusses several errors that unnecessarily create labor-relations problems, including: Automatically denying requests for private consultation. Viewing the steward as an adversary rather than a participant in the process. Responding emotionally when interviews become challenging. Threatening discipline against union representatives for appropriate advocacy. Practical Takeaways After listening, you'll be better prepared to: Respond confidently when a steward requests a private meeting. Maintain professionalism during difficult interviews. Balance employee representation rights with management's operational needs. Keep investigations organized, efficient, and legally defensible. Reduce unnecessary conflict while preserving the integrity of the investigative process. Who Should Listen This episode is designed for: HR professionals Employee Relations professionals Labor Relations practitioners Workplace investigators Human Resources managers and directors Supervisors and managers in unionized workplaces Employment attorneys Public sector investigators Anyone responsible for conducting workplace investigations involving represented employees Featured Quote "Respecting representation rights doesn't require surrendering control of the investigation. The best investigators know how to do both." Resources Mentioned National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Weingarten Rights during investigatory interviews Best practices for conducting workplace investigations in unionized environments  

Episode Summary During an investigatory interview, a single question can suddenly reveal the true focus of an investigation. A union steward who initially has little context may immediately recognize that the employee could be facing serious disciplinary consequences. Can the steward stop the interview and request a private consultation? Is that considered protected representation activity under Weingarten, or does it cross the line into impermissible coaching? In this episode, we examine one of the most frequently debated issues in workplace investigations: the union steward's right to request a recess after hearing questions that reveal the direction of the investigation. We explore the distinction between legitimate representation and obstruction, discuss how investigators should respond, and provide practical guidance for HR professionals, labor relations practitioners, workplace investigators, managers, and union representatives. What You'll Learn Understanding the Purpose of Weingarten Representation Why Weingarten rights exist and what they are intended to protect. The difference between passive observation and active representation. How effective representation can require private consultation during an interview. Why fairness and due process are critical components of workplace investigations. When a Recess Request May Arise Situations where a steward may not fully understand the allegations until questioning begins. How investigative questioning can reveal facts, allegations, or potential policy violations that were previously unknown. Why an employee may become confused, anxious, or uncertain after hearing a key question. Common triggers that prompt a request for a private consultation. The Difference Between Advising and Coaching Natalie discusses the critical distinction between: Appropriate Representation Helping the employee understand a question. Clarifying facts and timelines. Ensuring the employee understands the allegations. Encouraging complete and truthful responses. Protecting the employee's rights during questioning. Improper Conduct Telling the employee what story to tell. Encouraging dishonesty or omission of facts. Directing the employee to provide misleading information. Deliberately obstructing the investigative process. How Investigators Should Respond Why a reasonable recess request should generally be granted. Best practices for maintaining control of the interview while respecting representation rights. Setting reasonable expectations regarding the duration of breaks. Managing repeated requests for consultation. Maintaining professionalism during potentially tense moments. Who Should Listen: HR and Employee Relations professionals, investigators, and managers responsible for internal investigations or compliance. Get Trained by Natalie on how to conduct investigations: Natalie’s next 2-day Certificate Program virtual workshop to gain the skills, tools, and confidence to handle any investigation effectively—before a costly mistake happens.  The next virtual workshop will be on June 23-24, 2026 from 11:00-5:00 pm Eastern Time. Early bird registration closes at 5:00 pm on Monday, June 15 and includes special bonuses: $100 off registration; signed copy of Natalie's book How to Conduct Internal Investigations: A Practical Guide for Human Resource Professionals; the Supplemental Toolkit with quizzes, sample policies and documentation, and investigative interview question templates, and an RPC canvas tote "swag bag." Additionally, you will receive a Certificate of Training indicating you have attended a 10-contact hour SHRM and HRCI approved program, a spiral-bound training workbook, and Certified Workplace Investigator digital badge that you can use on your Linkedin and social media.   Note: this will be Natalie’s only virtual 2-day workshop this summer so register today to take advantage of these special bonuses!   

Episode Overview: In this first episode of the mini-series, host Natalie Ivey explains what Weingarten Rights are and the importance of internal investigators, especially HR and Employee Relations investigators, in understanding these rights. She further elaborates on common misconceptions, mistakes that are made, and how to handle a situation with a newly elected union steward who pushes the boundaries of the role so the investigatory interview can get back on track.  Key Topics Origins of Weingarten rights When rights attach Duties of management Responsibilities of union representatives Common misconceptions Key Lessons from This Episode: ✓ Representation is active, not passive. ✓ Employees must request representation. ✓ Investigators maintain control of the interview. Who Should Listen: HR and Employee Relations professionals, investigators, and managers responsible for internal investigations or compliance. Get Trained by Natalie on how to conduct investigations: Natalie’s next 2-day Certificate Program virtual workshop to gain the skills, tools, and confidence to handle any investigation effectively—before a costly mistake happens. The next virtual program will be on June 23-24, 2026 from 11:00-5:00 Eastern Time. (Please note in today's episode Natalie mentioned it ended at 4:00, but the program concludes each day at 5:00 pm ET). Early Bird registration is still open until end of business day Monday, June 15 so take advantage of the early-bird bonuses!