Workplace Investigations and Psychosocial Risk: What HR Managers Need to Get Right in 2026

A Workplace Investigation Is Not the Same as a Psychosocial Risk Assessment

A workplace investigation is generally concerned with establishing facts.

It asks questions such as:

• What is alleged to have occurred?

• What evidence supports or contradicts the allegation?

• What do the relevant witnesses say?

• Are there documents, emails, messages, recordings or other material relevant to the allegation?

• Is the evidence sufficiently reliable?

• Has the respondent had a proper opportunity to respond?

• Can the allegation ultimately be substantiated?

A psychosocial risk assessment asks different questions.

For example:

• Is there currently a risk to someone’s psychological health or safety?

• What is creating or contributing to that risk?

• Who may be exposed?

• How frequently and severely might workers be exposed?

• Are existing control measures adequate?

• What reasonably practicable steps can be taken to eliminate or minimise the risk?

• Do controls need to be implemented before the investigation is completed?

The distinction matters.

An employer should not conclude that there is no psychosocial risk merely because an allegation has not yet been substantiated.

In its guidance concerning sexual and gender-based harassment, Safe Work Australia makes this particularly clear. It states that an allegation does not have to be substantiated for there to be a WHS risk that needs to be managed.

That principle should cause HR managers to think differently about the period between receiving a complaint and reaching an investigation outcome.

The organisation may not yet know exactly what happened.

But it may still know enough to recognise that a risk requires attention.

The Investigation Process Itself Can Affect Psychosocial Risk

A well-managed workplace investigation can help restore confidence, clarify what occurred and provide a sound basis for organisational decision-making.

A poorly managed investigation can do the opposite.

Consider an employee who raises a serious bullying complaint.

The employee is told the matter will be investigated.

Three weeks pass.

They receive no update.

They continue reporting to the manager they have complained about.

Colleagues somehow become aware of the complaint.

Rumours begin circulating.

The employee does not know whether anyone has been interviewed.

Their manager becomes distant.

Another month passes.

HR says only that the matter is “still being investigated”.

Irrespective of the eventual findings, the investigation process itself may now be contributing to distress and perceptions of unfairness.

This is where the concept of organisational justice becomes particularly relevant.

Safe Work Australia describes poor organisational justice as involving issues such as unfair decision-making processes, inadequate communication, lack of interpersonal fairness, poor handling of personal information and failing to appropriately address alleged misconduct or harmful behaviour.

These concepts have obvious relevance to workplace investigations.

How an organisation receives, assesses, communicates about and investigates a complaint matters.

The process is not simply administrative.

10 Investigation Mistakes That Can Increase Psychosocial Risk

1. Delaying the Initial Response

Not every investigation can or should be completed quickly.

Complex matters may involve numerous witnesses, substantial documentary evidence and serious allegations requiring careful analysis.

But there is a significant difference between a properly managed investigation taking time and an organisation simply allowing a complaint to drift.

The first few days following a serious complaint are particularly important.

HR should consider:

• whether immediate safety concerns exist;

• whether interim arrangements are needed;

• whether evidence needs to be preserved;

• whether the allegations are sufficiently clear;

• who should investigate;

• what the complainant should be told about the next steps; and

• whether any other risk-management measures are required.

Silence can create uncertainty.

Uncertainty can increase anxiety.

Even when HR does not yet have an outcome, it can usually communicate something about the process.

2. Waiting for the Investigation Outcome Before Managing Risk

This is one of the most important mistakes organisations can make.

An investigation might take several weeks or longer.

Psychosocial risks cannot necessarily be placed on hold during that period.

Suppose an employee alleges repeated aggressive behaviour by a supervisor.

The organisation may ultimately determine that some allegations are substantiated, some are not substantiated, and others cannot be determined because of conflicting evidence.

But the organisation still has to consider what happens during the investigation.

Does the reporting relationship remain appropriate?

Does contact between the parties need to be managed?

Does either party require additional support?

Could temporary work arrangements reduce exposure without prejudging the allegations?

Are other workers exposed to the same alleged behaviour?

These are risk-management questions.

They are not findings of misconduct.

Making sensible interim arrangements does not necessarily mean accepting that the allegations are true.

That distinction should be clearly communicated.

3. Treating Every Complaint as Automatically Requiring a Formal Investigation

Another mistake is assuming that every workplace concern must immediately become a full formal investigation.

Sometimes it should.

Sometimes it should not.

A preliminary assessment may establish that the issue is better addressed through:

• informal resolution;

• facilitated discussion;

• mediation or another resolution process;

• management intervention;

• clarification of roles or expectations;

• performance management;

• workplace restoration;

• a broader cultural or psychosocial risk assessment; or

• another appropriate process.

The correct process depends on the nature and seriousness of the issue.

Allegations of serious misconduct, sexual harassment, violence, fraud, significant bullying or other serious conduct will often require formal investigation.

By comparison, some interpersonal disagreements may be more effectively managed through another intervention.

The important question is not:

“Has somebody made a complaint?”

It is:

“What process is appropriate given the allegations, risk, evidence and circumstances?”

4. Failing to Clearly Define the Allegations

One of the most common problems in workplace investigations is beginning interviews before the allegations have been properly identified.

A statement such as:

“My manager has bullied me for the last year”

is a complaint.

It is not yet necessarily an allegation capable of being fairly investigated.

The investigator may need to identify:

• what conduct allegedly occurred;

• approximately when it occurred;

• where it occurred;

• who was involved;

• what was allegedly said or done;

• whether anyone witnessed it; and

• the circumstances surrounding the incident.

This process is sometimes described as particularising the allegations.

Without clear allegations, an investigation can become unfocused.

Witnesses may be asked broad questions.

The respondent may not properly understand the case they are required to answer.

Irrelevant material may be gathered.

The investigation may expand unnecessarily.

And ultimately the organisation may have difficulty defending the fairness of the process.

5. Assuming Confidentiality Means Complete Secrecy

Employees are often told that an investigation is “completely confidential”.

That statement can create unrealistic expectations.

Workplace investigations require information to be gathered and tested.

A respondent generally needs enough information about allegations to provide a meaningful response.

Witnesses may need to be asked about particular events.

Documents may need to be reviewed.

Managers may need limited information to implement interim measures.

The better approach is usually to explain that information will be handled sensitively and shared only where reasonably necessary for the investigation, decision-making, risk management or other legitimate organisational requirements.

Confidentiality in workplace investigations should be carefully managed.

But it should not be promised in absolute terms when an organisation may not be able to maintain absolute secrecy.

Poor handling of worker information is also expressly identified by Safe Work Australia as an example relevant to poor organisational justice.

6. Allowing the Investigation to Become Perceived as Biased

An investigation does not merely need to be fair.

The process should also be capable of giving the parties confidence that conclusions will be reached objectively.

Questions about independence often arise where:

• the allegations concern senior executives;

• HR personnel are witnesses;

• an HR manager has previously advised one of the parties;

• the investigator reports to the respondent;

• the organisation has already expressed a view about what occurred;

• significant internal politics are involved;

• board members or executives are implicated;

• several complaints concern the same manager; or

• litigation or regulatory scrutiny is reasonably foreseeable.

This does not mean every workplace investigation must be conducted externally.

Many organisations have experienced internal investigators capable of conducting appropriate investigations.

But HR should consciously assess independence before appointing the investigator.

The question should be:

Would a reasonable person have confidence that this investigator can approach the evidence with an open mind?

7. Repeatedly Asking Employees to Retell Distressing Events

Investigation interviews sometimes deal with extremely sensitive material.

This can include sexual harassment, assault, racism, threats, intimidation, traumatic incidents or prolonged bullying.

Good investigation planning can reduce unnecessary repetition.

Before interviewing, the investigator should understand what information is already available and what genuinely needs clarification.

This does not mean avoiding difficult questions.

Investigators sometimes have to ask detailed and challenging questions.

But there is a difference between necessary evidence gathering and making someone repeat the same distressing account because the investigation was poorly planned.

Safe Work Australia recognises exposure to traumatic events or material as a psychosocial hazard.

Investigators and HR managers should therefore think carefully about interview structure, breaks, support arrangements, communication and the necessity of particular lines of questioning.

8. Failing to Keep the Parties Informed

One of the simplest ways organisations can improve investigation management is through structured communication.

The complainant and respondent do not need a running commentary on every piece of evidence.

They should not ordinarily be told what individual witnesses have said simply to satisfy curiosity.

But extended periods of silence are rarely helpful.

Where an investigation takes longer than anticipated, HR can usually explain:

• that the investigation is continuing;

• whether additional interviews or evidence gathering are required;

• that no findings have yet been reached;

• an updated anticipated timeframe if possible; and

• who the employee should contact if circumstances change.

The Fair Work Ombudsman’s own published investigation process refers to gathering and examining evidence, making decisions from that evidence and explaining decisions and the basis for them to the people involved.

Communication is not a substitute for a fair investigation.

But it is part of a well-managed process.

9. Confusing a Finding of “Not Substantiated” With “Nothing Happened”

This distinction is critical.

An allegation may not be substantiated because:

• there is insufficient evidence;

• evidence conflicts;

• a witness cannot recall the incident;

• relevant documentation does not exist;

• evidence cannot establish the allegation to the required standard; or

• the precise allegation cannot be proved.

That does not necessarily mean the complainant fabricated the concern.

Nor does it always mean there is no underlying workplace problem.

An investigation may identify broader issues even where particular allegations are not substantiated.

For example:

• poor communication;

• dysfunctional relationships;

• inconsistent management practices;

• inappropriate behaviour falling short of misconduct;

• inadequate role clarity;

• cultural problems;

• poor complaint-handling systems;

• inadequate supervision; or

• other psychosocial hazards.

HR should therefore avoid treating the findings section of an investigation report as the end of organisational responsibility.

Sometimes it is the beginning of the next stage.

10. Closing the Investigation Without Considering What Happens Next

An investigation answers factual questions.

It does not automatically repair a workplace.

After findings are delivered, HR may still need to consider:

• disciplinary processes;

• management action;

• workplace restoration;

• mediation;

• team interventions;

• policy changes;

• training;

• management coaching;

• supervision;

• psychosocial controls;

• communication with affected workers;

• monitoring;

• review of existing controls; and

• whether similar concerns could arise elsewhere.

Safe Work Australia states that psychosocial control measures should be maintained and reviewed to ensure they continue working effectively.

A technically sound investigation followed by no meaningful organisational response may leave the underlying risk unchanged.

Procedural Fairness and Psychosocial Safety Are Not Opposing Concepts

HR managers can sometimes feel caught between two competing concerns.

On one side is procedural fairness.

On the other is concern about causing distress to a complainant or respondent.

But procedural fairness and appropriate psychosocial risk management should not be treated as opposites.

Procedural fairness in workplace investigations requires a process that gives a person whose interests may be adversely affected a fair opportunity to respond to relevant allegations or adverse information before findings are made.

It does not require an investigator to behave aggressively.

It does not justify humiliating interview techniques.

It does not require unnecessary disclosure of private information.

It does not prevent appropriate support arrangements.

Likewise, managing psychosocial risk does not mean avoiding legitimate questions because they may be uncomfortable.

A serious workplace allegation must still be properly tested.

The objective should be a process that is both rigorous and respectful.

What Does Procedural Fairness Look Like in a Workplace Investigation?

Although every investigation is different, a fair process will generally require careful attention to matters including:

Clear allegations

The respondent needs sufficient detail to understand what conduct is alleged.

A genuine opportunity to respond

The investigator should approach the matter with an open mind and properly consider the respondent’s explanation and evidence.

Relevant evidence

Findings should be based on evidence rather than assumption, workplace gossip or predetermined views.

An impartial decision-making process

Actual or perceived conflicts should be considered before the investigator is appointed.

Testing competing evidence

Where accounts differ, the investigator should consider reliability, consistency, corroboration, contemporaneous records and other relevant evidence.

Reasoned findings

A finding should explain how the evidence supports the conclusion reached.

The Fair Work Ombudsman’s investigation guidance similarly describes a process involving collecting evidence, evaluating it, making decisions and explaining those decisions.

The Balance of Probabilities Does Not Mean “Who Do I Believe More?”

Workplace investigations commonly apply the civil standard of proof: the balance of probabilities.

In simple terms, the investigator determines whether it is more probable than not that the alleged conduct occurred.

But good investigation practice involves more than choosing which person appears more convincing.

Evidence needs to be considered as a whole.

Relevant factors may include:

• contemporaneous documents;

• emails and text messages;

• diary entries;

• system records;

• CCTV or access records;

• witness evidence;

• consistency between accounts;

• inconsistencies within an account;

• whether evidence is independently corroborated;

• plausibility in the surrounding circumstances;

• motive to misrepresent events; and

• the seriousness and inherent likelihood of the alleged conduct.

Credibility can be relevant.

But credibility is only one component of evidence assessment.

What Should HR Do Immediately After Receiving a Serious Complaint?

Before launching into interviews, HR should stop and conduct an initial assessment.

A useful starting checklist is:

1. What exactly is being alleged?

Separate facts, conclusions, opinions and workplace history.

2. Is there an immediate health or safety risk?

Consider the complainant, respondent, witnesses and other workers.

3. Are interim controls necessary?

This might involve changes to reporting lines, work locations, duties, contact arrangements, supervision or other temporary measures.

Care should be taken to avoid unnecessarily punitive measures or actions that appear to prejudge the outcome.

4. Does evidence need to be preserved?

Consider emails, Teams or Slack messages, CCTV, security records, rosters, text messages, personnel records and other potentially relevant information.

5. Does the matter require investigation?

Determine whether formal investigation is the appropriate response.

6. Who should investigate?

Consider competence, experience, availability, independence and conflicts of interest.

7. Does legal advice need to be obtained?

Particularly complex, high-risk or legally sensitive matters may require specialist workplace legal advice.

8. Who needs to know?

Limit information appropriately.

9. How will the parties be supported?

Consider EAP, the role of a support person, communication arrangements, scheduling and other appropriate measures.

10. Who will manage the workplace while the investigation occurs?

The investigator determines evidence and findings.

Someone still needs to manage the workplace.

Those responsibilities should be clearly separated.

When Should HR Consider an External Workplace Investigator?

There is no rule that every serious complaint must be investigated externally.

Internal investigators can be entirely appropriate. The Workplace Investigation Toolkit 2026 provides practical resources for organisations managing investigations internally.

Organisations can also obtain independent investigation support with scope, evidence, process or findings.

However, an external investigator should be seriously considered where independence, complexity, sensitivity or organisational risk make an internal process difficult.

Examples include situations where:

• allegations involve a CEO, executive or board member;

• the complaint concerns HR personnel;

• senior decision-makers are potential witnesses;

• multiple complainants are involved;

• multiple respondents are involved;

• sexual harassment or other serious misconduct is alleged;

• the allegations are highly sensitive;

• there has been a previous failed internal investigation;

• internal relationships create a real or perceived conflict;

• the matter has attracted regulator or media interest;

• litigation is reasonably foreseeable;

• substantial documentary evidence needs to be assessed;

• the organisation does not have suitably experienced investigators; or

• confidence in the independence of the process is particularly important.

External investigation should not be viewed simply as outsourcing a difficult HR problem.

Its value is in providing a structured, impartial evidence-gathering and fact-finding process that assists the organisation to make defensible decisions.

Don’t Forget the Respondent

Psychosocial risk management should not focus exclusively on the person who made the complaint.

Being accused of serious misconduct can itself be highly stressful.

A respondent may face uncertainty about their employment, professional reputation, colleagues and future career.

This does not mean allegations should be diluted or avoided.

It means the process should be managed professionally.

Respondents should ordinarily understand:

• the nature of the process;

• the allegations they are required to answer;

• how they can provide evidence;

• whether they may have a support person;

• who they should communicate with;

• expectations around confidentiality;

• any interim workplace arrangements; and

• what will happen next.

The same principles of dignity, respectful communication and appropriate support should apply across the investigation.

Don’t Forget the Witnesses Either

Witnesses can also experience significant pressure.

They may be concerned about:

• being seen to take sides;

• retaliation;

• damage to working relationships;

• confidentiality;

• giving evidence about senior colleagues;

• remembering events accurately;

• becoming involved in disciplinary proceedings; or

• how their evidence will be used.

Good investigators explain the witness’s role and the investigation process without attempting to influence what the witness says.

Witnesses should be asked what they actually saw, heard, did or recorded rather than being invited to speculate about other people’s motives.

Sexual Harassment Complaints Require Particular Care

Sexual harassment investigations are an important example of why investigation and WHS risk management must not be confused.

Safe Work Australia states that businesses must manage risks from sexual and gender-based harassment and that these risks can interact with other psychosocial hazards such as poor support, poor organisational justice, high job demands and isolated work.

Importantly, Safe Work Australia’s guidance says an incident does not need to have already occurred before a risk exists, and a WHS investigation does not require a formal complaint.

This means an organisation should not adopt the position:

“We cannot do anything about the risk until the workplace investigation proves the allegation.”

The misconduct investigation and the organisation’s preventative WHS obligations are different processes, even though they may draw on some of the same information.

Organisations should also be conscious of the positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to prevent certain unlawful sex discrimination and related conduct, alongside applicable WHS obligations. Safe Work Australia specifically notes this positive duty in its current guidance.

Workplace Bullying: Investigation or Something Else?

Bullying complaints can be particularly difficult for HR because employees may use the word “bullying” to describe a wide range of workplace experiences.

Under the Fair Work framework, workplace bullying investigations generally involve repeated unreasonable behaviour towards a worker or group of workers that creates a risk to health and safety. Reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner is not workplace bullying.

An investigation should therefore focus on the actual alleged conduct, not simply the label placed on it.

See our guide to evidence in a workplace bullying investigation when assessing the material required.

For example:

“My manager is bullying me.”

needs to become:

“On 14 March during the weekly operations meeting, the manager allegedly raised their voice, called the employee incompetent in front of six colleagues and stated that the employee would be replaced if their figures did not improve.”

That allegation can be investigated.

Labels are conclusions.

Conduct is evidence.

HR Should Avoid Predetermining the Outcome

One of the fastest ways to compromise an investigation is to decide what happened before gathering the evidence.

Predetermination can occur subtly.

Examples include:

“We know what this manager is like.”

“There have been complaints before.”

“She wouldn’t make something like this up.”

“He has worked here for twenty years and has never had a complaint.”

“Everyone knows those two don’t get along.”

None of those statements establishes whether a specific allegation occurred.

An investigator should be curious rather than convinced.

The task is to test the evidence.

A Good Investigation Should Be Proportionate

Not every investigation requires 30 interviews and thousands of pages of evidence.

Equally, a serious matter should not be compressed into two informal conversations and a one-page conclusion simply because the organisation wants the issue resolved quickly.

The investigation should be proportionate to:

• the seriousness of the allegations;

• complexity;

• number of allegations;

• number of parties;

• potential consequences;

• evidence available;

• legal and regulatory context; and

• level of organisational risk.

Efficiency is important.

So is getting it right.

What Should Happen After the Investigation?

A workplace investigation report is not the end of the process.

Once findings are received, the organisation should consider at least three separate questions.

1. What action follows from the findings?

That may include disciplinary or management processes.

The investigator’s role and the organisation’s decision-making role should be clearly understood.

2. What risks remain in the workplace?

Even if misconduct is substantiated and addressed, the organisation should consider whether underlying psychosocial hazards remain.

3. What did the organisation learn?

An investigation may reveal systemic issues such as:

• ineffective complaint procedures;

• poor management capability;

• cultural problems;

• inadequate supervision;

• unclear policies;

• role ambiguity;

• poor communication;

• inappropriate workplace norms;

• inadequate training;

• weak escalation mechanisms; or

• recurring organisational justice concerns.

A strong organisation does not simply ask:

“Who was right?”

It also asks:

“What does this tell us about our workplace?”

HR Workplace Investigation Checklist

Before commencing a workplace investigation, consider the following:

☐ Have the allegations been clearly identified?

☐ Is a formal investigation the appropriate process?

☐ Are there immediate psychosocial or physical safety risks?

☐ Have appropriate interim control measures been considered?

☐ Has relevant evidence been identified and preserved?

☐ Is the proposed investigator appropriately skilled?

☐ Is the investigator sufficiently independent?

☐ Are there actual or perceived conflicts of interest?

☐ Have the parties been told what process will be followed?

☐ Have appropriate support arrangements been considered?

☐ Has confidentiality been accurately explained?

☐ Does the respondent have sufficient particulars to respond fairly?

☐ Is there a communication plan for lengthy investigations?

☐ Are investigation responsibilities separate from workplace risk-management responsibilities?

☐ Has the organisation considered what will happen after findings are delivered?

The Key Message for HR Managers

The central lesson is relatively simple.

Do not wait for an investigation to finish before thinking about psychosocial risk.

A workplace investigation determines facts.

Psychosocial risk management protects workers from risks to psychological health and safety.

Sometimes those processes will operate side by side.

A complaint does not automatically prove misconduct.

Equally, the absence of a substantiated finding does not automatically mean there was no workplace risk.

The strongest investigation processes recognise both realities.

They are:

• independent where necessary;

• procedurally fair;

• evidence-based;

• proportionate;

• timely;

• carefully communicated;

• respectful of everyone involved; and

• integrated with the organisation’s broader responsibility to provide a psychologically and physically safe workplace.

In 2026, that is increasingly what good workplace investigation practice looks like.

When Independence Matters

Serious workplace allegations can create substantial risk for an organisation and for the people involved.

Where internal independence is difficult, the allegations are particularly serious or complex, or confidence in the process is essential, appointing an experienced external workplace investigator can provide greater separation between the organisation, the parties and the fact-finding process.

Synergy Workplace Investigations provides independent workplace investigations across Australia, including matters involving workplace bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, serious misconduct, conflicts of interest and other complex workplace complaints.

Our role is to conduct fair, thorough and evidence-based investigations that provide organisations with clear findings on which they can make informed decisions.

If your organisation has received a serious workplace complaint or you would like to discuss whether an independent investigation is appropriate, contact Synergy Workplace Investigations for a confidential discussion.

This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. Workplace relations, anti-discrimination and work health and safety requirements vary according to jurisdiction and individual circumstances. Organisations should obtain appropriate legal or professional advice where required.

Frequently Asked Questions About Workplace Investigations and Psychosocial Risk

Can a workplace investigation create a psychosocial risk?

Yes. While an investigation may be necessary to address workplace allegations, the way it is managed can affect psychosocial risk. Long delays, uncertainty, inadequate communication, breaches of confidentiality, perceived unfairness, repeated exposure to distressing material and poorly managed workplace relationships can increase psychological stress for complainants, respondents and witnesses.

Does an employer need to wait until allegations are substantiated before managing psychosocial risk?

No. An investigation determines whether particular allegations can be substantiated on the evidence. Psychosocial risk management is a separate responsibility. Where a risk to psychological health and safety has been identified, an organisation may need to consider appropriate control measures while the investigation is still underway.

What is the difference between a workplace investigation and a psychosocial risk assessment?

A workplace investigation is primarily concerned with establishing facts and determining whether allegations are substantiated. A psychosocial risk assessment considers hazards that may cause psychological harm, who may be exposed and what measures can eliminate or minimise the risk. Depending on the circumstances, both processes may need to occur at the same time.

Should every workplace complaint be formally investigated?

No. The appropriate response depends on the seriousness and nature of the allegations, the available evidence, workplace risk and the circumstances of the parties. Some issues may be better addressed through management intervention, mediation, facilitated discussion or another resolution process. Serious allegations of misconduct, bullying, sexual harassment or other significant wrongdoing will often require formal investigation.

When should an employer use an external workplace investigator?

An external investigator should be considered where independence may be questioned, senior employees or HR personnel are involved, allegations are particularly serious or sensitive, multiple parties are involved, internal investigation capability is limited, or litigation or regulatory scrutiny is reasonably foreseeable.

What is procedural fairness in a workplace investigation?

Procedural fairness generally means that the investigation is conducted impartially, allegations are sufficiently clear, a person affected by potential adverse findings has a genuine opportunity to respond, relevant evidence is considered and findings are reached without predetermination or bias.

Can an employer change work arrangements while an investigation is underway?

Potentially. Employers may need to consider temporary risk-control measures while an investigation is conducted. Depending on the circumstances, this could involve changing reporting arrangements, locations, duties, supervision or contact between parties. Interim measures should be proportionate and should not unnecessarily prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

What happens if an allegation is not substantiated but workplace problems still exist?

A finding that an allegation is not substantiated does not necessarily mean there are no workplace issues requiring attention. An investigation may identify poor communication, management practices, interpersonal conflict, unclear roles, cultural issues or psychosocial hazards that warrant separate organisational action.

How long should a workplace investigation take?

There is no single timeframe suitable for every investigation. Investigations should be progressed without unnecessary delay while allowing sufficient time to gather and assess relevant evidence and provide procedural fairness. Complex investigations involving multiple allegations, witnesses or substantial documentary evidence will generally take longer than straightforward matters.

What should HR do first when a serious workplace complaint is received?

HR should clarify the allegations, assess immediate health and safety risks, consider whether interim controls are required, preserve potentially relevant evidence, determine whether formal investigation is appropriate and decide who is sufficiently skilled and independent to conduct the investigation.