Here’s the entire thing if you don’t want to go to that link:

There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest employment and labour law firms in Western Canada.” They work with both private and public sector employers.

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same. Now that the investigation is complete, we’re able to provide a summary of the findings.

The investigation found that:

  • Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

  • Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

  • Any concerns that were raised were investigated. Furthermore, from reviewing our history, the investigator is confident that if any other concerns had been raised, we would have investigated them.

  • There was no evidence of “abuse of power” or retaliation. The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

  • Allegations of process errors and miscommunication while onboarding this individual were partially substantiated, but the investigator found ample documentary evidence of LMG working to rectify the errors and the individual being treated generously and respectfully. When they had questions, they were responded to and addressed.

In summary, as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.

With all of that said, in the spirit of ongoing improvement, the investigator shared their general recommendation that fast-growing workplaces should invest in continuing professional development. The investigator encouraged us to provide further training to our team about how to raise concerns to reinforce our existing workplace policies.

Prior to receiving this report, LMG solicited anonymous feedback from the team in an effort to ensure there was no unreported bullying and harassment and hosted a training session which reiterated our workplace policies and reinforced our reporting structure. LMG will continue to assess ongoing continuing education for our team.

At this time, we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong; however, our deepest wish is to simply put all of this behind us. We hope that will be the case, given the investigator’s clear findings that the allegations made online were misrepresentations of what actually occurred. We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation.

This doesn’t mean our company is perfect and our journey is over. We are continuously learning and trying to do better. Thank you all for being part of our community.

  • Franklin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    6 个月前

    You can’t investigate employee abuse allegations months after the fact, everything there is circumstantial and proving anything after the fact is near impossible.

    This was obviously an act done to cover the business. I’m not saying they are wrong to do so. I’m just saying that anyone expected any other outcome isn’t living in reality.

    • Mountain_Mike_420@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 个月前

      Well yes you can. I am sure the investigation company poured through digital (timestamped) logs, messages, data, emails…

      • Franklin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        Most places I’ve worked have data retention policies in place that would twart to any such efforts.

        To add this any party that’s perpetrating abuse would obviously know to avoid recorded communication. I’m my anecdotal experience people tend to think better of it when they have time to actually type it out.

        Lastly given the sensitive nature of the investigation and the third party being hired it was obvious we’d never get a look behind the curtain at the methodology and without that any statement is worthless.