<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Employee Relations Insight</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nierenberg.com/articles/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nierenberg.com/articles</link>
	<description>Ideas and Methods to Improve Your Workplace</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:56:49 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Limitations on Vacation Leave Payouts by Gail Tucker</title>
		<link>http://www.nierenberg.com/articles/2007/11/limitations-on-vacation-leave-payouts/36/comment-page-1/#comment-98</link>
		<dc:creator>Gail Tucker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:56:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nierenberg.com/articles/2007/11/limitations-on-vacation-leave-payouts/36/#comment-98</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Joe.  One more example of the courts taking almost &quot;forever&quot; to make a decision!  gt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Joe.  One more example of the courts taking almost &#8220;forever&#8221; to make a decision!  gt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Do You Need an Outside Investigator? by Joe Nierenberg</title>
		<link>http://www.nierenberg.com/articles/2005/10/do-you-need-an-outside-investigator/19/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Nierenberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:16:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nierenberg.com/articles/?p=19#comment-13</guid>
		<description>It depends on what management already knows about that situation and what the history has been with regard to the supervisor, the subordinate, and other employees.  For example, if management has compelling reasons to believe that (i) the relationship was not unwelcome on the part of anyone, (ii) no one else&#039;s job assignment or working conditions were affected, (iii) no workplace policies were violated, and (iv) there has not been a pattern of such relationships, then the employer might not need to undertake any further investigation if the situation essentially has resolved itself through the supervisor&#039;s resignation.  If you are not sure that all of those criteria are true, then a prompt investigation might be necessary in order to determine what really went on and to assess the best way to move forward.  There may be a need to change something in the way the workplace operates, or there may be a need to support or remedy an employee who has been adversely affected by the situation.  If further investigation seems necessary, it would probably have a different focus and scope than the type of investigation the employer might have conducted if the supervisor had not already submitted his or her resignation.  An additional factor, if further investigation seems prudent, is that it might be easier to obtain information from the supervisor if the questions are asked before his or her resignation becomes effective.  (This response is not a legal opinion.  Please see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nierenberg.com/articles/notices-and-disclaimers-please-read/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;terms of use&lt;/a&gt;.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It depends on what management already knows about that situation and what the history has been with regard to the supervisor, the subordinate, and other employees.  For example, if management has compelling reasons to believe that (i) the relationship was not unwelcome on the part of anyone, (ii) no one else&#8217;s job assignment or working conditions were affected, (iii) no workplace policies were violated, and (iv) there has not been a pattern of such relationships, then the employer might not need to undertake any further investigation if the situation essentially has resolved itself through the supervisor&#8217;s resignation.  If you are not sure that all of those criteria are true, then a prompt investigation might be necessary in order to determine what really went on and to assess the best way to move forward.  There may be a need to change something in the way the workplace operates, or there may be a need to support or remedy an employee who has been adversely affected by the situation.  If further investigation seems necessary, it would probably have a different focus and scope than the type of investigation the employer might have conducted if the supervisor had not already submitted his or her resignation.  An additional factor, if further investigation seems prudent, is that it might be easier to obtain information from the supervisor if the questions are asked before his or her resignation becomes effective.  (This response is not a legal opinion.  Please see <a href="http://www.nierenberg.com/articles/notices-and-disclaimers-please-read/" rel="nofollow">terms of use</a>.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Do You Need an Outside Investigator? by Anne Hajek</title>
		<link>http://www.nierenberg.com/articles/2005/10/do-you-need-an-outside-investigator/19/comment-page-1/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne Hajek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nierenberg.com/articles/?p=19#comment-12</guid>
		<description>If a supervisor admits to a relationship with the subordinate, and resigns should an investigation be done prior to accepting the resignation?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If a supervisor admits to a relationship with the subordinate, and resigns should an investigation be done prior to accepting the resignation?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
