Not every workplace issue requires an independent investigation. Many concerns can be managed internally, particularly where the facts are relatively straightforward and the organisation has the capability to handle the matter objectively and confidentially.
Serious allegations, complaints involving senior people, sensitive matters or situations where the people available internally are too close to those involved can all make an independently managed investigation worth considering.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts of what happened before forming a view. A fair and impartial process protects everyone involved and gives employers a clearer basis for deciding what happens next.
When should an employer investigate?
A workplace investigation may be appropriate whenever an employer needs to establish the facts before deciding what to do next.
This may include:
- complaints about bullying or harassment
- suspected misconduct
- breaches of workplace policies
- other behaviour affecting employees or the organisation.
Not every concern requires a formal investigation. The appropriate response will depend on the nature of the issue. Where the facts are disputed, the allegations are serious, the relationships involved are complex, or the outcome could have significant consequences for an employee or the organisation, an independent investigation may be appropriate.
What is an independent workplace investigation?
An independent workplace investigation involves someone who can approach the allegations objectively and without a personal interest in the outcome.
In some situations, that may be someone inside the organisation who has sufficient distance from the people and events involved.
In others, an external workplace investigator may be more appropriate.
The aim is not independence for its own sake. It is to protect the fairness and credibility of the fact-finding process.
Depending on the circumstances, an investigation may involve interviewing the people concerned and relevant witnesses, reviewing emails, documents or other evidence, and giving those involved a fair opportunity to respond to the issues raised.
The aim is to establish the facts before reaching any conclusions, rather than making assumptions.
When might an independent investigation be appropriate?
1. The allegations are serious or sensitive
The more serious the allegations, the more important it is that the investigation is seen to be fair and impartial.
For sensitive matters, using someone independent can also give the people involved greater confidence in the process.
2. The complaint involves someone senior
An internal investigation can become difficult when the allegations involve an owner, director, senior manager or another person with significant influence within the organisation.
In these situations, an independent investigator can help remove concerns about internal pressure or conflicts of interest.
3. The internal investigator is too close to the issue
Sometimes the people who would normally investigate are closely connected to the complaint, the employee involved or the events themselves.
If an investigator could reasonably be seen as having already formed a view, or as being too close to the matter to remain neutral, it may be better to bring in someone independent.
4. Confidence in the process is particularly important
An investigation needs to be fair, but it also needs to be credible to the people involved.
Where relationships have already become strained or there is concern about bias, greater independence can help give employees and employers more confidence in the process and its findings.
5. Fact-finding should be kept separate from the decision
Where practical, the person investigating should be separate from the person who will decide what action, if any, follows.
Keeping fact-finding and decision-making separate can help protect impartiality and reduce the risk of the outcome appearing predetermined.
What does a fair workplace investigation process look like?
Whether an investigation is handled internally or independently, the same core principles of fairness apply.
Define the scope and allegations
Set out clearly what is being investigated and the specific allegations involved.
The employee should understand what is said to have happened and what workplace standard, policy or expectation may have been breached.
Give the employee a genuine opportunity to respond
Natural justice requires the employee to have a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.
That includes reasonable time to prepare, access to relevant evidence and the opportunity to explain their version of events.
They should also be able to bring a support person or representative to an investigation or disciplinary meeting.
Gather relevant evidence
Collect the documents, records and other information relevant to the allegations and speak with the people involved.
The investigation should remain focused on establishing the facts rather than proving a predetermined conclusion.
Consider the response fairly
The employee’s explanation should be genuinely considered alongside the other evidence.
A fair process is not simply about completing the correct steps. The investigator must remain open-minded throughout the process.
Keep clear records
Document the allegations, evidence considered, interviews, responses and findings.
Good records help demonstrate how conclusions were reached and make any later employment decision easier to support.
Why does independence matter?
Independence helps protect both the fairness of the process and confidence in the outcome.
Even where there appears to be strong evidence of misconduct, a poorly handled investigation can create unnecessary risk for an employer.
A fair investigation gives the employer a sound factual basis for deciding what happens next and helps ensure the employee has had a genuine opportunity to participate in the process.
Does every workplace investigation need an external investigator?
No. Many workplace investigations can be carried out internally.
The key question is whether there is someone within the organisation who can investigate objectively, remain open-minded and avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest.
An external investigator becomes more valuable when the matter is particularly serious, sensitive or complex, involves someone senior, or there is no suitable person internally who can approach the issue impartially.
If you are unsure, it can be useful to get HR advice before the investigation begins. Decisions about scope, process and who should investigate are much easier to address at the outset than once the investigation is already underway.
