Loading page
All-in-one HR platform · v2.0
14-day free trial · No credit cardhello@HrMagix.com
All-in-one HR platform · v2.0
14-day free trial · No credit cardhello@HrMagix.com
An investigation answers one question: on the balance of the evidence, what happened? It does not decide the outcome. Keeping fact-finding separate from the decision about consequences is the most important thing in this guide, and the most commonly skipped.
This covers complaints of misconduct generally: conduct, fraud, policy breaches, bullying. Complaints of sexual harassment at work follow the separate statutory route through the Internal Committee, covered in its own guide. Where disciplinary action may follow, your certified standing orders or service rules may set procedure you must follow; check them first. This is guidance on practice, not legal advice.
01
Acknowledge the complaint in writing and record exactly what is alleged, by whom, against whom, and when. Ask the complainant what outcome they are looking for; it does not bind you, but it tells you whether they expect a formal process.
Then decide the route. Some matters can be resolved informally with both parties' agreement. Others, involving serious misconduct, a pattern, or a risk to others, need a formal investigation. Sexual harassment complaints go to the Internal Committee regardless of how they arrived.
Watch for itDo not start interviewing before you have decided the route. An informal chat that turns into evidence-gathering halfway through is hard to defend later.
02
The investigator should not be in the reporting line of either party, should not be a witness, and should not be the person who will decide the outcome. In a small organisation this may mean an external investigator.
Write terms of reference: the specific allegations to be investigated, the timeframe, who the investigator reports to, and what they are not to decide. An investigator who drifts into new allegations without the scope being widened formally creates a fairness problem.
03
Sometimes the parties cannot keep working side by side while the investigation runs, or there is a risk that evidence will be interfered with. Options include changing reporting lines temporarily, separating shifts, or, in serious cases, suspension pending enquiry.
Any interim measure should be stated in writing as non-disciplinary and not a finding. Suspension pending enquiry may carry obligations, including on subsistence allowance, under standing orders or applicable law; check what applies to you before using it.
04
Collect what exists before anyone is interviewed: emails, messages, attendance and access logs, expense records, CCTV where lawfully held, and any earlier complaints. Documents are more reliable than recollection and help you ask better questions.
Preserve the evidence. Ask IT to retain mailboxes and logs that might otherwise be deleted on a routine schedule.
05
The usual order is complainant, then witnesses, then the person complained against, then follow-up with anyone whose account needs testing against new evidence. The person complained against must be told the substance of the allegations and given a genuine chance to respond.
Watch for itWhether a person may be accompanied at an interview, and by whom, may be governed by your standing orders or service rules. Check before the first interview, not after an objection.
06
For each allegation, set out the evidence for and against, say which evidence you prefer and why, and state whether the allegation is substantiated, not substantiated, or could not be determined. Workplace investigations usually work on the balance of probabilities, not proof beyond doubt.
The report goes to the decision-maker. It should be readable by someone who was not involved, and it should not recommend a specific penalty unless the terms of reference ask for one. Tell both parties the outcome in appropriate detail, and record what was done.
Every guide ends here rather than in a summary. If a line below is not true yet, that is the next thing to do.
Someone with no involvement in the matter, outside the reporting line of both parties, and not the person who will decide the outcome. Small organisations often use an external investigator.
Suspension pending enquiry is used in serious cases, but it may carry obligations under standing orders or applicable law, including subsistence allowance. Check what applies to you and state that the suspension is not a finding.
Workplace investigations generally decide on the balance of probabilities, meaning whether something is more likely than not to have happened, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Usually not. The investigator establishes facts; the decision-maker decides consequences. Keeping these separate makes the outcome easier to defend.
No. Complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace go through the Internal Committee under the POSH Act 2013, which sets its own procedure and timelines.
The checklist above is generic by necessity. Bring your own structures, states and rota and we will tell you which lines are already true and which are not.
14-day free trial · Full access to all 12 modules · Zero implementation fee · Cancel anytime