The Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly found that due process provided for a proprietary interest in the income from continued employment. This meant that non-probationary employees whose position was secured as for example by contract, were entitled to pre-deprivation procedural protection or more plainly, an explanation to why they were being terminated and opportunity to offer a defense or explanation BEFORE their income ceases. 

Part of such 'pre-deprivation' process, may include an investigation in which the employer may wish to question the employee; for example, let's say a police officer is arrested off-duty for domestic violence and among the standard conditions of pre-trial release is the condition that he must not possess a weapon. The officer can hardly perform his duties without a weapon so assuming the officer is non-probationary, the agency will likely choose to 'investigate' the matter to determine their liability and course of action. 

In such case, the Court in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) determined that the employer may compel the employee to respond to questions narrowly tailored to the issue at hand as a condition of employment BUT that such testimony may not be used against them to support a criminal charge. As an aside, what they significantly fail to mention in this case is that the testimony alone may not support the charge but it very well may lead to evidence that does AND the testimony may be used for purposes of impeachment in ANY future hearing or trial. 

Back to the matter at issue; the Court in NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. outlined the minimum conditions under which such questioning may take place. Most significantly, Weingarten provided the entitlement to union representation upon request of the employee with a bar against retribution for such request. The dictum I find most persuasive follows: 

Weingarten at 420 U.S. 252 at 263 (1975): "A knowledgeable union representative could assist the employer by eliciting favorable facts, and save the employer production time by getting to the bottom of the incident occasioning the interview. Certainly his presence need not transform the interview into an adversary contest." This would discourage and limit grievances as once the punishment has been discharged it "becomes increasingly difficult for the employee to vindicate himself, and the value of representation is correspondingly diminished. The employer may be more concerned with justifying his actions than reexamining them." 

While the Court in Weingarten is specific to name "union representative" the law in the State of Florida broadens the scope at 112.532(1)(i) where it states that "[a]t the request of any law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation, he or she shall have the right to be represented by counsel or any other representative of his or her choice . . ." 

It's here that a skilled attorney and/or representative finds his/her place.  As noted above, the duty of a representative is to promote the members position by asking questions, interjecting and objecting where necessary without necessarily being disruptive or combative.  The member is entitled to take breaks which are also a nice way of interrupting the process to the member’s advantage (112.532(1)(e)) and in the event that Departmental Administration challenges your representation, they should be reminded that the member is entitled to the representative “of his or her choice.”  Since you are the representative of choice, the Admin must accept your presence, or the meeting will necessarily cease at the Department’s election.  

While here you have the law that entitles us to represent our members, perhaps most significantly it should be considered, how you would ask to be represented if you were the member rather than the representative.  

As always, should you have any questions, feel free to contact me.