Jeff Scafaro is a Cleveland-based labor relations professional with more than two decades of experience supporting employers through complex employee and labor relations challenges. Jeff Scafaro is the founder of Vanguard Consulting Group, LLC, where he advises organizations nationwide on collective bargaining, workplace investigations, arbitration, and organizational change. He also serves as director of employee and labor relations for LifeBridge Health, Inc., leading systemwide labor relations and employee relations initiatives across a large, multi-entity healthcare system. Over the course of his career, Jeff Scafaro has worked on both sides of labor relations, first as a union advocate and later as an employer advocate, giving him a balanced perspective on fairness, compliance, and process integrity. That background directly informs his understanding of how workplace investigations should be structured to meet legal requirements, protect employee rights, and maintain organizational trust while resolving allegations efficiently and credibly.
Structuring Workplace Investigations
Workplace investigations typically stem from complaints alleging workplace misconduct. The employee impacted by the conduct may make the complaint directly. Alternatively, a manager made aware of the issue or a third-party witness brings the complaint to the attention of the authorities. Whoever initiates the investigation, various federal, state, and local statutes, as well as regulatory guidance and judicial opinions, help interpret and resolve the matter.
Most companies maintain internal written policies outlining the parameters for launching investigations into noncompliant employee activities. Such materials range from employee handbooks to harassment and discrimination policies. Channels for making complaints include speaking with the supervisor or manager of the affected employee, as well as compliance or legal team members. Some companies maintain hotlines and online resources that allow employees to file complaints easily, without personal interaction.
Most workplace investigations begin with internal investigations, and the focus is on prompt, thorough action, fully documented at each stage. In certain cases, the company may suspend the employee being investigated (with full pay). This is typically reserved for serious allegations of gross misconduct and situations where there is no other way to separate the accused from the alleged victim of harassment. When an investigation suspension is deemed warranted, the company must furnish a written statement outlining the reason for the suspension. The investigated employee should also receive an estimated date for the decision on the investigation outcome.
Other measures include obtaining the alleged victim’s consent for a transfer, schedule change, or leave of absence. The key here is that such actions are voluntary. The company should never take any action that might be considered retaliatory against the complainant.
The investigator who collects and assesses relevant documents and conducts witness interviews must have no perceived bias. This precludes personal relationships with any parties involved or a stake in the investigation’s outcome. At the same time, the investigator should have an in-depth knowledge of relevant laws, policies, and statutes. They must have he ability to maintain rapport with all parties, as one who is fair and impartial. They should also be conversant with legal obligations, as they may be called upon to act as credible witnesses in a court of law.
In recent years, new wrinkles in workplace investigations have emerged that require careful attention. For example, employees are increasingly raising mental health concerns within the parameters of conduct in the workplace. These can be difficult to quantify and define the threshold at which they become problematic and warrant action. In some cases, employees may point to the investigatory interview process itself as causing psychological distress. For this reason, employers emphasize psychological safety as investigations proceed and strive to address concerns sensitively the moment they are expressed.
Another emerging concern centers on the use of AI and deepfake technologies in potentially manipulating data and evidence. The same technologies that enable employers to gather data, such as chats, texts, and other electronic evidence from computers and devices, also allow the fabrication of evidence. For this reason, many investigations bring in forensic computer specialists who examine various documentary evidence, from video chats to emails, and ensure its integrity. Such credibility assessments emphasize the use of corroborating evidence from multiple sources as a foundational requirement in bolstering claims. With these fact-finding channels in play, workplace investigators have a good chance of getting to the truth.
About Jeff Scafaro
Jeff Scafaro is a labor relations consultant and founder of Vanguard Consulting Group, LLC, based in Cleveland, Ohio. He also serves as director of employee and labor relations for LifeBridge Health, Inc. With experience as both a union advocate and employer advocate, he specializes in collective bargaining, workplace investigations, arbitration, and leadership training, supporting organizations nationwide with ethical, transparent labor-management practices.
