Companies that resort to PIs for theft, drugs may find they have deeper morale issues
POOR TREATMENT OF employees is part of the catalyst for workplaces to unionize, according to Peter Martin, president of AFI International Group, a Milton, Ont.-based private investigation firm, and one of the reasons employers are now conducting private investigations into how supervisors are treating their workers.
“They’re hiring us to monitor the treatment of employees by supervisors,” he said. “Are they following policies and procedures? Or are they belittling employees or harassing them?”
Desmond Taljaard, AFI’s vice-president of corporate investigations, said employees are often too afraid to come forward when they are being treated badly.
“We come in to see do we have an issue, or are they just disgruntled employees?” he explained. “It’s more a validation of what the employer is hearing. We give them detailed reports so they can take the next steps.”
Martin said bringing in private investigators allows companies to have a “macro look” within to seek out systemic issues that need resolving.
“When issues come up as ‘one-offs’ they can’t connect the dots,” he said. “Our agents find out what’s driving those symptoms, so the company can fix the root problem and not provide a band-aid.”
Investigations involve undercover agents posing as employees to gather inside information. Taljaard said they are “not just fishing expeditions.” He said the employer has to have strong reason to believe there is a problem, whether it’s harassment, bullying, violence, theft, substance abuse or something equally concerning.
While employers don’t specifically hire AFI to sniff out potential union organizers or the first whiffs of a certification drive — something Martin calls “unlawful and unethical” — he said agents will let companies know when workplace conditions are favourable to union organization.
“That’s not the real reason they bring us in,” he said. “They have issues with shrinkage, drugs, threats of violence or something else.”
The underlying issue, according to Martin, is that employees are frustrated, unhappy and “have little recourse except a union.”
He justifies hiring private investigators to assess workplace morale and behaviour as a cost saving.
“The cost associated with having us come in is lower than dealing with substance abuse problems, workplace violence, etc. and much less than getting a union involved.”
AFI specializes in providing security, replacement workers, transportation and business continuity planning to employers during labour disputes.
This pro-employer bias concerns John Aman, the Canadian Auto Workers director of organizing.
“If a company is genuinely concerned about its workers, it will do what’s right in the first place,” he said. “We’re clearly seeing an encroachment from south of the border with this anti-union mentality. Employers are looking for novel ways to keep unions out but union avoidance strategies are for the most part ineffective.”
Aman said the CAW has a 75 per cent “win rate” historically with certification drives. He said workers typically organize when they have exhausted all means of improving their rights and workplace conditions.
“There’s a misconception among employers that workers join a union for a single issue,” he said. “But it takes a lot. By the time they come to us, it’s the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Martin at AFI said his company’s goal is the same as many unions — to improve morale, safety, etc. — but without the cost, or perceived negative association, of a union.
“A lot of people think if a company has to be unionized it must be a bad company,” he said. “Actually, you want to keep a union out because you want to be a good workplace.”
Aman questions the effectiveness of private investigations at either ridding workplaces of unions or preventing them from organizing in the first place. He said while the rate of unionization has taken a hit at private U.S. companies, it remains strong in Canada in both the public and private sectors.
