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.

  • xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I feel like the fact they paid the same party that investigated them is an obvious enough conflict of interest to dismiss this out of hand. Whether the report is actually trustworthy or not, there is an incentive to come to a conclusion that aligns with whomever paid them and that alone should make people question the conclusions being made.

      • puppy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Invite a third party to do it. The funds could have come from crowd-sourcing.

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They hired an outside firm to audit them. That’s industry best practice

          As far as the payment for the outside fund, I think they would have come under even more criticism if they crowdfunded the third party investigation. And then they would still be accused of having undue influence, because they would have chosen the third party.

          In one sense they did crowdfund it, they just paid for the whole thing themselves.

              • puppy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                I’d like to receive criticism to what I presented instead of you resorting to ad-hominem, please.

                  • puppy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Nobody wants to watch a video to participate in a text-based debate

                    Why not? What’s wrong with using the most presentable, easy to digest content? If I needed to present a graph to support my claim would you rather have me describe that information in text rather than link to a picture or a video that shows that graph?

                    Also, there’s no need to watch the videos in length either to get what I’m presenting either. They describe and support proof to my 2 claims,

                    1. Investigator should be independent
                    2. There should be no conflict of interest in where money is coming from to pay the investigator

                    I presented 3 videos in a few comments but didn’t want to spam it to every reply. But here they are for your convenience.

                    1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbq9OsHvp4
                    2. https://youtu.be/CTxt96DwaFk?si=0KHoVdFElOoH0-Za
                    3. https://youtu.be/C_0XEIFGK5o?si=Yc_hONVBDGcEV_t6

                    If you were thinking that we were having a debate, why don’t you stick to debate rules and present a rebuttal to my claims?