[rboat864]

Situation occurred in Colorad. A management employee was met by HR upon his/her arrival to work and told to come to the HR office to answer some questions. The management employee was told that he/she was being asked questions as part of the investigation process for a situation that involved a direct report of the management employee. He/she was asked to describe what knowledge he/she had of the particular situation involving the direct report. The management employee described what information and knowledge he/she had of the matter. Upon concluding the questions and listening to the answeres provided, the management employee was advised that he/she would be sent home with pay until the investigation was completed. The management employee asked why and was advised that it was the procedure to remove individuals being questioned from the investigation scene to ensure the process was handled properly and accurately. When asked if all persons being questioned were being sent home the answer given was NO. When asked if he/she was under investigation, the management employee was told that HR could not answer that question and would contact he/she when the investigation was completed. HR told the management employee that was all the information that could be given and that he/she would need to leave the property. HR did not ask him/her to hand over any company owned property.

[ScottGem]

And your question is whether they should have been advised they were under investigation? Sounds to me like everything was handled according to company policy. I don't see any wrongdoing.

[rboat864]

Yes, should they have been advised they were actually being investigated and for what? Again the they were told the questioning was related to another matter and not something they had done or said. Should they have an opportunity to answer specific questions about their investigation and be given the chance to respond?

[ScottGem]

An internal investigation is not subject to the rules of a police investigation. There is no "mirandizing" or anything like that. So again. I see no wrongdoing here.

Are you the employee? If not, what is your interest here?

[rboat864]

Yes, I am. I understand the normal police policy/rules are not standard; however, is there not a basic standard for companies?

[ScottGem]

however, is there not a basic standard for companies?

No there is not. A company is a separate entity. While it is subject to the laws of the land, there is a lot more autonomy then you might think. They cannot violate your civil rights, they cannot discriminate against you. But I don't see that as the case here.

This is not a criminal investigation and prosecution. They can fire you without a reason. Now, if they fired you AND then decided to press criminal charges, then its probable your attorney could get any statements you made to them inadmissible in court.

But did they have to inform you of the nature and scope of the investigation before questioning you, No!

It sounds like you have been temporarily suspended with pay. They could have been telling the truth that you were sent home so as not to interfere with the investigation. I don't know. But, yet again, I see nothing to indicate any illegal activity or wrongdoing on the part of the company.