When Are Employers Required to Conduct a Workplace Investigation?

an employee bullied at work

I get asked this question a lot, usually by employers who’ve just received a complaint and are hoping the answer is “not always.”

Fair enough. Not every workplace gripe needs a formal investigation. But here’s the thing: more complaints require investigation than most employers think. And the consequences of deciding not to investigate when you should have can be far worse than the cost and disruption of the investigation itself.

So when is a workplace investigation actually required? Let’s cut through the noise.

The Legal Position: There’s No Single Rule

There’s no single piece of Australian legislation that says “you must investigate every complaint.” But there are multiple legal obligations that, taken together, create a very strong expectation that employers will investigate serious workplace complaints. These obligations come from several sources.

Work Health and Safety Laws

Under the Work Health and Safety Act, employers have a primary duty of care to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers. Recent regulatory amendments have made explicit what was always implicit – that psychological health is part of an employer’s WHS duty. If an employee reports bullying, harassment, or other conduct that creates a psychosocial risk, ignoring it isn’t just bad management – it’s a potential breach of your WHS obligations.

Employers now have a positive duty to identify and manage psychosocial hazards. A formal complaint is about as clear a signal as you’re going to get that a hazard may exist. Failing to investigate it is failing to manage the risk.

Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Laws

If a complaint involves sexual harassment, discrimination, or any conduct covered by the Sex Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act, or equivalent state legislation, employers have specific obligations. Under the positive duty provisions introduced in the Sex Discrimination Act, employers must take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful sex discrimination and sexual harassment. Investigating complaints is one of the most fundamental of those measures.

If a discrimination or harassment complaint goes uninvestigated and the matter ends up before the Australian Human Rights Commission or a state tribunal, the employer’s failure to investigate will be front and centre. It’s very difficult to argue you took reasonable steps to address the issue if you didn’t even look into it.

Fair Work Act Obligations

If an employer takes adverse action against an employee – termination, demotion, a formal warning – that action needs to be based on a sound and defensible process. If the adverse action relates to alleged misconduct, the Fair Work Commission will want to see that the allegations were properly investigated before any decision was made. An employer who terminates someone without investigating the underlying complaint is asking for an unfair dismissal claim.

The Fair Work Commission has been very clear on this: a valid reason for dismissal isn’t enough. The process has to be fair, and a fair process almost always includes an investigation.

Your Own Policies

Here’s one that catches a lot of employers out. If your workplace policies say complaints will be investigated, then they need to be investigated. It sounds obvious, but I regularly see organisations with beautifully written complaint-handling policies that promise thorough investigation and fair outcomes – and then do nothing when a complaint actually arrives.

Your policies create expectations. If an employee relies on those expectations and you don’t follow through, that’s a problem – both legally and in terms of workplace trust.

When a Workplace Investigation Is Clearly Required

While every situation is different, there are certain categories of complaints where an investigation is almost always necessary:

Allegations of bullying or harassment. Whether it’s a formal written complaint or a verbal report to a manager, allegations of workplace bullying or harassment need to be investigated. The severity of the allegations will determine the scope and formality of the investigation, but ignoring them is not an option.

Sexual harassment complaints. Always. No exceptions. Given the current regulatory environment and the positive duty obligations, failing to investigate a sexual harassment complaint is one of the highest-risk decisions an employer can make.

Discrimination complaints. If an employee alleges they’ve been treated unfavourably because of a protected attribute – race, gender, disability, age, sexuality, religion – that complaint requires investigation.

Serious misconduct allegations. Theft, fraud, safety breaches, violence, intoxication at work – these are matters where the potential consequences for the individual are significant (including termination), so the investigation needs to be thorough and procedurally fair.

Repeated or escalating complaints. If you’re getting multiple complaints about the same person or the same issue, that’s a pattern. Patterns need investigation, not just another informal chat.

Complaints that could result in adverse action. If the outcome of the complaint could lead to a warning, demotion, or termination, you need an investigation to support that decision. Taking adverse action without an investigation is the employment law equivalent of building a house without foundations.

See also: Who Should Conduct a Workplace Investigation?

When You Might Not Need a Formal Investigation

Not every workplace issue requires a formal, external investigation. Some situations can be resolved through other means:

Minor interpersonal conflicts. Two colleagues who aren’t getting along over workload distribution or communication styles may benefit more from a facilitated conversation or mediation than a formal investigation.

Performance issues. Poor performance is generally managed through performance management processes, not investigations – unless the performance issue is intertwined with allegations of misconduct.

Complaints where the facts are not in dispute. If everyone agrees on what happened and the only question is what to do about it, you may not need a formal fact-finding investigation. But tread carefully here – what looks straightforward on the surface can turn out to be more complex once you scratch beneath it.

A word of caution: even in these situations, document your decision-making. If you decide not to formally investigate a complaint, record why you made that decision and what alternative action you took. If the matter escalates later, you’ll want to show that you gave it proper consideration rather than just hoping it would go away.

The Cost of Not Investigating

Employers who choose not to investigate serious complaints are making a calculated bet that the problem will resolve itself. Spoiler: it almost never does. Here’s what actually happens.

The behaviour continues or escalates. If someone is bullying or harassing a colleague and nothing happens when a complaint is made, they’ve just learned there are no consequences. The behaviour gets worse.

The complainant loses trust and leaves – or goes external. When an employer ignores a complaint, the complainant has limited options. They either suffer in silence, resign (hello, constructive dismissal claim), or take the complaint to an external body like the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Human Rights Commission, or a WHS regulator. None of these outcomes are good for the employer.

Other employees notice. People talk. If word gets around that a serious complaint was ignored, it sends a clear message: this organisation doesn’t take complaints seriously. Expect your engagement scores to drop and your turnover to rise.

Psychosocial risks multiply. An uninvestigated complaint doesn’t just affect the complainant. It creates a psychologically unsafe environment for everyone who knows about it. Under current WHS laws, that’s a hazard you’re failing to manage.

Your legal position weakens dramatically. If the matter ends up in a tribunal or court, the first question will be: what did the employer do when the complaint was raised? “Nothing” is not an answer that goes well for anyone.

The Grey Area: Anonymous Complaints, Third-Party Reports, and Whistleblower Disclosures

What about complaints that come through anonymous channels, or reports from a third party who witnessed something but isn’t the direct target? These are trickier, but they don’t let you off the hook.

An anonymous complaint that contains specific, credible allegations still needs to be assessed and, in most cases, investigated. You may not be able to provide the same level of procedural fairness (because there’s no complainant to interview), but that doesn’t mean you ignore it. Similarly, if a manager witnesses conduct that could constitute bullying, harassment, or misconduct, they have a responsibility to report it and the organisation has a responsibility to act on it – regardless of whether the affected person has made a formal complaint.

And then there are whistleblower disclosures, which add another layer entirely. Under the Corporations Act, employers have specific obligations to protect whistleblowers who report misconduct, illegal activity, or conduct that represents a danger to the public. If a disclosure is made through a whistleblower channel – whether internal or external – the organisation must take it seriously, investigate appropriately, and critically, protect the identity of the whistleblower.

The penalties for failing to protect a whistleblower, or worse, retaliating against one, are severe. This isn’t an area where you want to wing it. If you receive a whistleblower disclosure, get specialist advice before you do anything else, because the way you handle the investigation from the outset matters enormously.

The principle across all of these situations is simple: once the organisation is on notice that there may be a problem, it needs to respond. The form of that response will depend on the circumstances, but “we didn’t get a formal written complaint” is not a defence for inaction.

The Bottom Line

When is a workplace investigation required? In short: whenever a serious complaint is raised and you need to understand what happened before you can decide what to do about it. The legal framework across WHS, anti-discrimination, and employment law all point in the same direction – employers are expected to take complaints seriously and respond proportionately.

If you’re sitting on a complaint right now and wondering whether you really need to investigate, ask yourself this: if this matter ended up before a tribunal or regulator next month, would you be comfortable explaining your decision not to investigate? If the answer is anything other than a confident yes, you know what you need to do.

Related reading: How to choose a workplace investigator (what to look for, red flags, and when to go external)

Unsure whether your situation requires a formal workplace investigation? Segal Conflict Solutions can help you assess your options and, if needed, conduct an independent workplace investigation. Get in touch for a confidential, obligation-free conversation.

Who Should Conduct a Workplace Investigation? (Hint: Probably Not Who You Think)

workplace investigator consoles victim

A complaint has landed on your desk. You know it needs to be investigated. And now you’re staring at the obvious question: who should conduct this workplace investigation?

It’s a more important question than most organisations realise. The person you appoint to conduct a workplace investigation will determine whether the process is credible, whether the findings are defensible, and whether the people involved feel they were treated fairly. Get it right and you resolve the issue. Get it wrong and you create a bigger mess than the one you started with.

Who Can Conduct a Workplace Investigation?

Let’s start with the legal position. In Australia, there’s no specific legislation that says only certain professionals can conduct workplace investigations. There’s no mandatory licence or registration. Technically, an employer can appoint anyone they consider appropriate.

But “can” and “should” are very different things. Just because you can appoint your operations manager to investigate a bullying complaint doesn’t mean you should. The question isn’t who’s legally permitted to do it. The question is who will do it well enough that the findings hold up and the people involved trust the outcome.

The Usual Suspects: Who Organisations Typically Appoint

The HR Manager

This is the default choice for most organisations, and in some cases it’s the right one. A senior HR professional with investigation training can handle straightforward, low-risk complaints effectively. They know the policies, they know the people, and they can move quickly.

The problem? HR isn’t always as neutral as organisations assume. HR reports to the CEO or the board. HR has working relationships with managers across the business. HR may have been involved in decisions that are now part of the complaint. And frankly, HR is often too busy to give an investigation the dedicated time it needs. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told an internal investigation “just kept getting pushed back” because HR was swamped with other priorities.

A Senior Manager

Some organisations appoint a senior manager from a different department to conduct the investigation. The logic is that they’re senior enough to have authority but removed enough from the situation to be impartial.

In practice, this rarely works well. Most managers haven’t been trained in workplace investigations. They don’t know how to interview properly, they don’t understand procedural fairness, and they’re not equipped to weigh conflicting evidence and make defensible findings. They also tend to approach investigations the way they approach management problems – looking for a quick resolution rather than following the evidence wherever it leads. Good intentions, wrong skill set.

The In-House Lawyer

Lawyers understand evidence. Lawyers understand procedural fairness. So an in-house lawyer should be a good choice, right?

Sometimes. But being a lawyer doesn’t automatically make someone a good investigator. Workplace investigations require a different approach to litigation. You’re not cross-examining hostile witnesses – you’re interviewing people who are stressed, emotional, and often scared. The skills are related but not identical. And the same independence concerns apply: an in-house lawyer is employed by the organisation and may struggle to be perceived as truly impartial.

An External Workplace Investigator

An external investigator is an independent professional engaged specifically to conduct the investigation. They have no ongoing relationship with the organisation or the parties, no stake in the outcome, and typically have specialist training and experience in workplace investigations.

This is the gold standard for anything beyond a straightforward, low-risk complaint. Not because internal people are inherently incompetent – but because independence is the foundation of a credible investigation, and it’s very difficult to achieve when the investigator is on the same payroll as everyone else involved.

What Actually Matters When Choosing Who Should Investigate

Regardless of whether you go internal or external, the person who conducts your workplace investigation needs to tick certain boxes. These aren’t negotiable.

Independence

The investigator must be genuinely independent of the parties and the subject matter. If they’re friends with the respondent, if they report to the person being complained about, or if they were involved in the events being investigated, they cannot conduct the investigation. This isn’t a grey area.

Training and Experience

Conducting a workplace investigation requires specific skills that don’t come from general management or HR experience alone. The investigator needs to know how to plan and scope an investigation, conduct investigative interviews (not just conversations), assess and weigh evidence, apply procedural fairness, and write a clear, evidence-based report. If they haven’t been trained in these areas, the investigation is at risk from the start.

Impartiality

Independence and impartiality aren’t the same thing. Someone can be structurally independent (no conflict of interest) but still approach the investigation with a predetermined view. A good investigator goes in with an open mind, follows the evidence, and makes findings based on what the evidence supports – not what the organisation wants to hear and not what the complainant expects.

Capacity

Whoever conducts the investigation needs the time to do it properly. A workplace investigation isn’t something you do in the gaps between meetings. It requires focused, dedicated time for interviews, document review, analysis, and report writing. If the person you’re appointing doesn’t have the capacity to prioritise the investigation, it will drag on and the quality will suffer.

Sensitivity to Psychosocial Risks

Under current WHS laws, employers have a positive duty to manage psychosocial hazards. The investigation process itself can be a source of psychological harm if it’s not handled with care. The person conducting the investigation needs to understand this. They need to be able to manage interviews with empathy and professionalism, recognise when someone is struggling, and flag welfare concerns to the organisation. An investigation shouldn’t make people’s mental health worse.

Common Mistakes Organisations Make

Appointing the cheapest option instead of the right one. Saving money on the investigation is a false economy if the findings get challenged or the process causes more harm than it resolves.

Appointing someone too close to the situation. If the investigator has any relationship with the parties – social, professional, or hierarchical – the investigation’s credibility is compromised before it even begins.

Assuming HR can always handle it. HR professionals are talented people, but not every HR professional is equipped to conduct a workplace investigation. And even when they are, the perception of independence may still be a problem.

Taking too long to decide. I’ve seen organisations spend weeks debating who should conduct the investigation while the complainant waits in limbo. Make the decision quickly. The longer you take, the worse it gets for everyone.

Not checking qualifications and experience. Don’t take someone’s word for it that they’re an experienced investigator. Ask how many investigations they’ve conducted, what training they’ve completed, and whether you can see a de-identified sample report. If they can’t answer these questions confidently, keep looking.

The Bottom Line

Who should conduct a workplace investigation? Someone who is independent, trained, impartial, available, and capable of handling the process with both rigour and humanity. Whether that person sits inside or outside your organisation depends on the nature of the complaint, the level of risk, and whether the people involved will trust the process.

When in doubt, go external. It’s not an admission of failure – it’s a sign that your organisation takes complaints seriously enough to invest in getting it right. And that’s exactly the message you want to send.

Need an independent workplace investigator? Segal Conflict Solutions provides workplace investigation services across Australia. Get in touch for a confidential discussion about your matter.

External vs. Internal Workplace Investigations: Which Is Right for Your Organisation?

external workplace investigations

You’ve received a workplace complaint and you know it needs to be investigated. The next question is: who’s going to do it? Do you hand it to your HR team to manage internally, or do you bring in an external workplace investigator?

It’s not always an obvious call. Both options have their place. But in my experience, organisations get this decision wrong more often than they get it right – usually because they default to the cheaper or more convenient option without thinking through the consequences. And by the time they realise the investigation has a credibility problem, it’s too late to fix it.

Let’s break down when each approach works, when it doesn’t, and how to make the right call for your situation.

Internal Workplace Investigations: When They Work

An internal workplace investigation is conducted by someone within the organisation, usually a senior HR professional, an in-house lawyer, or sometimes a manager with appropriate training.

Internal investigations can work well when the complaint is relatively straightforward – a single allegation, limited witnesses, no involvement of senior leadership, and no pre-existing tensions that could compromise the process. If your HR team is trained in workplace investigations and has the time and capacity to manage the process properly, handling a low-level complaint internally can be efficient and cost-effective.

Advantages of Internal Investigations

Cost. The most obvious one. You’re using existing staff, so there’s no external fee. For straightforward matters, this can make good financial sense.

Organisational knowledge. An internal investigator already understands the culture, the policies, the reporting lines, and the context. They don’t need a briefing on how the organisation works.

Speed. In theory, an internal investigator can get started immediately without the procurement process of engaging an external provider.

The Problems with Internal Investigations

Here’s where it gets tricky. The advantages of internal investigations are also their weaknesses.

Perceived bias. This is the big one. No matter how fair and competent your HR team is, an internal investigator is employed by the same organisation as the complainant and the respondent. They report to the same leadership. They have ongoing working relationships with the people involved. For the person making the complaint, it’s entirely reasonable to wonder: can this person really be impartial when their boss is the one being complained about?

Capacity and competing priorities. Internal investigators rarely have the luxury of dropping everything to focus on an investigation. They’re still doing their day job, still answering emails, still getting pulled into meetings. Investigations get squeezed in between everything else, and timelines blow out. I’ve seen internal investigations take four months for matters that an external investigator would have wrapped up in four weeks.

The aftermath problem. Here’s something nobody talks about: the internal investigator still has to work with these people once the investigation is done. They have to sit in meetings with the person they didn’t substantiate allegations against. They have to manage the HR file of the person who was disciplined based on their findings. That’s an incredibly uncomfortable position, and it can – consciously or unconsciously – influence how they approach the investigation in the first place.

Training gaps. Being a good HR professional doesn’t automatically make someone a good investigator. Workplace investigations require specific skills in evidence gathering, interviewing, procedural fairness, and report writing. If your HR team hasn’t been formally trained in these areas, the investigation may not withstand scrutiny.

External Workplace Investigations: When to Bring Someone In

An external workplace investigation is conducted by an independent professional engaged specifically for the matter. This is typically a specialist workplace investigator, a lawyer with investigation experience, or someone with a background in both.

Advantages of External Investigations

Independence and credibility. An external investigator has no stake in the outcome and no ongoing relationship with the parties. This is the single most important factor in whether the people involved trust the process. And trust in the process is everything. If the complainant doesn’t believe the investigation was fair, you’ll end up dealing with a second complaint about the investigation itself.

Dedicated focus. An external investigator is engaged to do one thing: investigate this matter. They’re not juggling it alongside their regular workload. This typically means faster turnaround and a more thorough process.

Specialist expertise. Experienced external investigators do this all day, every day. They know how to manage complex interviews, navigate procedural fairness requirements, and write reports that stand up to legal challenge. They’ve seen the patterns and they know the pitfalls.

Related reading: Who Should Conduct a Workplace Investigation?

Risk management. If the matter ends up at the Fair Work Commission, in a workers’ compensation claim, or before a regulator, having an independent, external investigation significantly strengthens your position. It demonstrates that the organisation took the complaint seriously and managed the process with integrity.

The Downsides of External Investigations

Cost. Let’s be honest about it. External investigators charge fees, and for complex matters, those fees add up. But I’d argue the cost of a proper external investigation is almost always less than the cost of getting it wrong internally – in terms of legal exposure, staff turnover, workers’ compensation claims, and reputational damage.

Ramp-up time. An external investigator needs to be briefed on the organisation, its policies, and the context of the complaint. This takes time at the outset, though a good investigator will manage this efficiently and it rarely adds more than a day or two to the overall timeline.

How to Decide: A Practical Framework

Forget about cost for a moment. The question you should be asking is: will the people involved trust this process?

If the answer is yes – if the complaint is straightforward, the HR team is trained and credible, and there’s no conflict of interest or perception of bias – an internal investigation may be perfectly appropriate.

If there’s any doubt, go external. Specifically, consider an external workplace investigation when:

The complaint involves senior leadership or management. When the person being complained about has power within the organisation, an internal investigation will always struggle for credibility – even if it’s conducted perfectly.

There are multiple or complex allegations. Matters involving several allegations, multiple parties, or allegations spanning a long period need specialist skills and dedicated time that most internal teams can’t provide.

There’s potential legal exposure. If the matter could result in a Fair Work claim, an anti-discrimination complaint, a workers’ compensation claim, or regulatory action, you need an investigation that will withstand external scrutiny.

Trust in the organisation is already low. If employees are cynical about the organisation’s willingness to address complaints fairly, an internal investigation will confirm their worst assumptions. An external investigator sends a clear message that the organisation is taking the matter seriously.

The complaint involves systemic or cultural issues. If the complaint suggests problems that go beyond one individual – a culture of bullying, widespread harassment, or systemic unfairness – the investigation needs to come from outside the system it’s examining.

The HR team has a conflict of interest. If HR is friends with the respondent, reports to the person being complained about, or has been part of the problem, they cannot investigate it. Full stop.

The Psychosocial Safety Dimension

Under current WHS laws, employers have a positive duty to manage psychosocial risks in the workplace. The way you conduct a workplace investigation has a direct impact on the psychological safety of everyone involved.

An investigation that’s perceived as biased, that takes too long, or that’s conducted by someone too close to the situation doesn’t just produce unreliable findings – it actively harms the people involved. The complainant feels dismissed. The respondent feels targeted. The rest of the team loses faith in the organisation’s ability to keep them safe.

Choosing between an internal and external investigation isn’t just a procurement decision. It’s a workplace safety decision. And it should be treated with that level of seriousness.

The Bottom Line

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to the external vs. internal workplace investigation question. But there is a simple test: if you have any doubt about whether an internal investigation will be trusted, believed, and respected by the people involved, bring in someone from outside.

The cost of an external investigator is predictable and contained. The cost of an investigation that nobody trusts – in legal fees, staff turnover, compensation claims, and cultural damage – is not.

Need an independent, external workplace investigation? Segal Conflict Solutions provides external workplace investigations in Sydney and across Australia, delivering thorough, impartial findings your organisation can rely on. Get in touch for a confidential discussion.

How to Choose a Workplace Investigator (And How to Spot a Bad One)

External workplace investigator listens to two employees during an investigation interview meeting

Choosing a workplace investigator is one of those decisions that feels straightforward until you actually have to make it. You’ve got a complaint on your desk, HR is nervous, and someone has told you to “get an external investigator.” Great. But how do you actually choose one? And more importantly, how do you tell the difference between someone who’ll do a thorough, defensible job and someone who’ll hand you a report that falls apart the moment it’s challenged?

I’ve been conducting workplace investigations for over 15 years. I’ve also been called in to clean up investigations that were botched by the wrong person. Here’s what I wish every employer knew before choosing a workplace investigator.

Related reading: When Are Employers Required to Conduct a Workplace Investigation?

Why Choosing the Right Investigator Matters

A workplace investigation isn’t a box-ticking exercise. The findings can lead to terminations, disciplinary action, compensation claims, and regulatory scrutiny. If the investigation is poorly conducted, biased, or procedurally unfair, those findings can be challenged, overturned, or used against you in the Fair Work Commission, anti-discrimination tribunals, or even court.

The investigator you choose sets the tone for the entire process. A good one will manage the matter efficiently, treat everyone with fairness and respect, and give you findings you can rely on. A bad one will create more problems than they solve.

What to Look for When Choosing a Workplace Investigator

1. Actual Workplace Investigation Experience

This sounds obvious, but you’d be surprised. Not every lawyer is a workplace investigator. Not every HR consultant is a workplace investigator. Not every mediator is a workplace investigator. These are different skill sets.

A workplace investigation requires a specific combination of skills: the ability to interview people who are stressed, angry, or frightened; the analytical rigour to assess conflicting evidence; and the legal knowledge to ensure procedural fairness is maintained throughout. Ask your potential investigator how many workplace investigations they’ve actually conducted. Not “been involved in” or “advised on” – actually conducted. There’s a big difference.

2. A Solid Understanding of Procedural Fairness

Procedural fairness isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s the backbone of a defensible investigation. Your investigator needs to understand that every respondent has the right to know the allegations against them and to respond before findings are made. They need to know how to put allegations clearly and specifically without leading the witness or compromising the process.

If a potential investigator can’t explain their procedural fairness process clearly and confidently, that’s a red flag. This is foundational stuff.

3. Genuine Independence and Impartiality

The investigator needs to be independent of the parties and the outcome. This means they shouldn’t have a pre-existing relationship with the complainant, the respondent, or the decision-makers in the organisation. They shouldn’t have a vested interest in the findings going one way or the other.

This is one of the biggest reasons to consider an external investigator over an internal one, particularly when the complaint involves senior staff or when there’s any perception of bias within the organisation. It doesn’t matter how fair and thorough your internal HR team is – if the complainant doesn’t believe the process is independent, the investigation will lack credibility from day one.

4. Clear Communication Skills

A good investigator doesn’t disappear into a black hole for six weeks and then emerge with a 50-page report. They communicate with the commissioning party throughout the process. They provide realistic timelines, flag delays early, and keep you informed about progress without compromising the integrity of the investigation.

Their report writing matters too. Investigation reports need to be clear, logical, and evidence-based. If your investigator can’t write a coherent sentence, their findings are going to be difficult to rely on. Ask to see a de-identified sample report before you engage them.

5. Awareness of Psychosocial Risks

This is increasingly important. Under current WHS laws, employers have a positive duty to manage psychosocial hazards, and the investigation process itself can create or worsen those hazards if it’s not handled properly. A good investigator understands this. They’ll conduct interviews with sensitivity, manage the emotional temperature of the process, and flag any welfare concerns to you along the way.

If your investigator treats witnesses like they’re cross-examining them in a courtroom, that’s a problem. Investigations should be thorough and rigorous, but they should also be humane.

Red Flags: Signs You’ve Got the Wrong Investigator

Over the years, I’ve seen plenty of investigations go sideways because the wrong person was appointed. Here are the warning signs:

They can’t give you a rough timeline or fee estimate. An experienced investigator should be able to scope the matter after an initial briefing and give you a realistic estimate of time and cost. If they’re vague about both, they either haven’t done this enough or they’re not organised enough to manage the process well.

They promise a specific outcome. If an investigator hints that they’ll find what you want them to find, walk away. An investigation is a fact-finding process, not an outcome-delivery service. The findings need to follow the evidence, wherever that leads.

They don’t ask about procedural fairness. If you brief an investigator and they don’t raise procedural fairness requirements early in the conversation, that tells you something about how they approach investigations.

They’re too close to the organisation. If the investigator is your regular employment lawyer, your ongoing HR consultant, or someone who has a financial relationship with the organisation beyond this specific investigation, their independence may be questioned. That doesn’t mean they’re biased – but it means the perception of bias is there, and perception matters.

Their reports are templates, not analysis. A good investigation report is a detailed, evidence-based document that walks through each allegation, weighs the evidence, and explains the reasoning behind each finding. If you’re getting cookie-cutter reports with generic language, you’re not getting the quality of analysis you need.

Questions to Ask Before You Engage an Investigator

Before you sign an engagement letter, ask these questions:

How many workplace investigations have you conducted? What types of matters do you typically handle? What’s your approach to procedural fairness? Can you provide a rough timeline and fee estimate based on this brief? Do you have any conflicts of interest with the parties or the organisation? Can I see a de-identified sample report? What qualifications or training do you have in workplace investigations? How do you handle welfare concerns that arise during the investigation?

A good investigator will welcome these questions. They’ll have clear, confident answers. If someone gets defensive or vague when you ask about their experience and approach, that tells you everything you need to know.

Related reading: Who Should Conduct a Workplace Investigation?

Should You Go Internal or External?

This is often the first decision employers face, and it’s worth getting right. Internal investigators (usually HR) can work well for lower-level, straightforward complaints where there’s no perception of bias and the HR team has the training and capacity to conduct the investigation properly.

But for anything involving senior staff, systemic issues, complex or multiple allegations, potential legal exposure, or situations where trust in the organisation is already low – go external. The added cost of an external investigator is a fraction of the cost of defending a flawed investigation at the Fair Work Commission or dealing with a workers’ compensation claim triggered by a mishandled process.

And here’s the thing nobody says out loud: internal investigators often have an impossible job. They’re being asked to investigate their own colleagues, sometimes their own managers, while still having to work with those people once the investigation is done. That’s not a fair position to put anyone in, and it’s not a position that produces the most reliable findings.

The Bottom Line

Choosing a workplace investigator isn’t like choosing a plumber. You can’t just Google it and go with the first result (ironic, given that you probably Googled your way to this article). The person you appoint will have a direct impact on the lives and careers of the people involved, on your organisation’s legal exposure, and on your workplace culture.

Take the time to choose well. Ask the hard questions. Look for experience, independence, and rigour. And if something doesn’t feel right during the briefing conversation, trust that instinct – because if they can’t inspire confidence in you, they’re not going to inspire confidence in the people being investigated.

Looking for an experienced, independent workplace investigator? Segal Conflict Solutions conducts external workplace investigations across Australia. Get in touch for a confidential, obligation-free discussion about your matter.

How Long Do Workplace Investigations Take? A Realistic Timeline (Not the One HR Textbooks Give You)

If you’re Googling “how long do workplace investigations take,” I’m going to guess you’re in one of two camps. Either you’re the employer who just received a complaint and you’re trying to figure out how long your life is going to be disrupted. Or you’re the person who made the complaint and you’re wondering why it feels like everyone has forgotten about you.

Either way, you want a number. So here it is.

The Short Answer

Most workplace investigations take between 2 and 8 weeks. Some wrap up faster. Some drag on for months. I know that’s not the precise, satisfying answer you were hoping for, but workplace investigations aren’t flat-pack furniture  – they don’t come with a predictable assembly time.

What I can tell you is what determines whether your investigation lands at the shorter or longer end of that range. And as someone who’s conducted numerous workplace investigations for over 15 years, I can tell you the factors that blow out timelines are almost always avoidable.

What Actually Affects the Timeline

1. The Complexity of the Complaint

A single allegation of inappropriate behaviour with two witnesses? That’s a relatively contained investigation  – potentially 1–3 weeks. Six allegations of bullying spanning two years with twelve witnesses and a paper trail that looks like it was shredded and reassembled by a toddler? You’re looking at 6–8 weeks minimum.

The scope of the investigation is the single biggest factor in how long it takes. More allegations mean more witnesses, more documents to review, and more findings to write up. It’s not complicated maths  – it’s just reality.

2. Witness and Party Availability

This is the timeline killer that nobody talks about. I can have my diary cleared and ready to go, but if your key witness is on annual leave in Bali for two weeks, we’re all waiting. If the respondent is on stress leave and their doctor says they can’t participate for a month, we’re waiting for that too.

People also cancel interviews. Reschedule. Get sick. Have family emergencies. These are humans, not calendar entries, and investigations have to work around real lives. I’ve had investigations delayed by weeks because one critical witness kept rescheduling.

3. How Quickly the Organisation Moves

Here’s a hard truth: the biggest delays in workplace investigations usually come from the organisation itself, not the investigator.

I regularly see weeks lost to internal decision-making. Who should we appoint? Do we need an external investigator? Should we get legal advice first? Should we wait until after the restructure? Meanwhile, the complainant is sitting at their desk every day wondering if anyone actually read their complaint.

My advice? Once you receive a complaint, make a decision within 48 hours about how you’re going to handle it. That doesn’t mean you start interviews immediately  – it means you decide on your approach, appoint your investigator, and communicate with the parties. Speed at this stage sets the tone for the entire process.

4. The Volume of Documents

Some investigations involve a handful of emails. Others involve hundreds of documents  – emails, text messages, CCTV footage, performance reviews, policy documents, and the complainant’s own 47-page diary of events (yes, this happens more than you’d think).

Document review takes time. Good investigators don’t skim  – they read everything, cross-reference it, and use it to inform their interview questions. If you want a thorough investigation, you need to factor in time for this.

5. Procedural Fairness Requirements

This is non-negotiable and it adds time. Every person against whom allegations are made has the right to know what’s been alleged and to respond. This isn’t optional  – it’s a legal requirement under Australian workplace law, and skipping it is one of the fastest ways to have your investigation findings thrown out.

What does this look like in practice? The investigator interviews the complainant first, then puts the key allegations to the respondent  – often in writing  – and gives them a reasonable time to respond. The respondent’s response is then considered before any findings are made. This process is important and non-negotiable, but it adds at least a week or two to most investigations.

A Realistic Timeline: What Each Phase Looks Like

Here’s roughly how a standard workplace investigation breaks down:

Scoping and planning (2–5 days): Defining the terms of reference, identifying witnesses, gathering initial documents, and getting the logistics sorted.

Interviews (1–4 weeks): The most variable phase. Depends entirely on how many people need to be interviewed and how available they are. Each interview typically runs 1–2 hours, and the investigator needs time to prepare, conduct, and write up notes for each one.

Document review and analysis (3–7 days): Often happens concurrently with interviews, but complex matters may need dedicated time for this.

Procedural fairness (1–2 weeks): Putting allegations to the respondent and allowing them time to respond.

Report writing (1–2 weeks): Preparing a detailed investigation report with findings and, where appropriate, recommendations. This isn’t a rush job  – a good report needs to be thorough, well-reasoned, and legally sound.

Red Flags: When an Investigation Is Taking Too Long

While some investigations legitimately take longer, there are warning signs that something has gone wrong:

If it’s been more than two weeks and nobody has been interviewed yet, ask questions. If you haven’t received any update in three weeks, that’s a problem. If the investigation has been going for three months with no end in sight, something is fundamentally broken  – either the scope has ballooned, the investigator is overwhelmed, or the organisation is dragging its feet.

Delays aren’t just inconvenient  – they’re harmful. For the complainant, every extra week feels like the organisation doesn’t care. For the respondent, it’s weeks of having allegations hanging over their head. And for the rest of the team, it’s weeks of tension, gossip, and uncertainty. Dragging out investigations costs organisations far more than just the investigator’s fees.

The Psychosocial Risk Factor: Why Timeline Matters More Than Ever

If you haven’t been paying attention to the changes in workplace health and safety laws, now’s the time to start. Under the updated WHS regulations, employers have a positive duty to identify and manage psychosocial hazards in the workplace. And unresolved complaints? Investigations that drag on without communication or resolution? Those are psychosocial hazards.

Think about it. A complainant who’s raised a bullying allegation and heard nothing for six weeks is sitting in a psychologically unsafe workplace every single day. A respondent with allegations hanging over their head and no indication of when it’ll be resolved is experiencing chronic workplace stress. The rest of the team, walking on eggshells because they know something is going on but nobody’s telling them anything? That’s a toxic work environment brewing in real time.

This means the timeline of your investigation isn’t just an operational issue  – it’s a safety issue. Regulators like SafeWork are increasingly looking at how employers manage the process around complaints, not just the outcome. A substantiated finding delivered six months late, with no interim risk management, no communication, and no support for the parties? That’s a failure, even if the final report is excellent.

What does this mean practically? It means that while the investigation is underway, employers need to be actively managing the psychosocial risks created by the situation. That might include adjusting reporting lines, offering EAP support, checking in with affected parties, or making temporary changes to work arrangements. The investigation doesn’t happen in a vacuum  – people still have to come to work every day while it’s going on, and they need to feel safe doing so.

How to Keep Your Investigation on Track

After years of doing this, here’s what I know works:

Act quickly once a complaint is received. Don’t let it sit in someone’s inbox for two weeks while you figure out what to do. Appoint an investigator, set terms of reference, and get moving.

Decide early whether to go internal or external. This is one of the first decisions you need to make, and it matters more than people think. If the complaint involves senior leadership, if there’s any perception of bias, or if your HR team is too close to the parties involved, an internal investigation is going to struggle for credibility – no matter how well it’s conducted. Trust in the process is everything. If the people involved don’t believe the investigation is independent and impartial, your findings won’t be worth the paper they’re written on. When in doubt, go external. The cost of an external investigator is nothing compared to the cost of an investigation nobody trusts.

Choose the right investigator from the start. An experienced workplace investigator will scope the investigation properly, manage the process efficiently, and not let things drift. If your investigator doesn’t give you a rough timeline at the outset, ask for one.

Make witnesses available. This is the employer’s responsibility. Direct witnesses to cooperate and make themselves available for interviews within a reasonable timeframe.

Have your documents ready. When the investigator asks for policies, employment records, or emails, get them across quickly. Every day you take to find documents is a day added to the timeline.

Communicate with the parties. Regular updates, even if it’s just “the investigation is ongoing and we expect it to be completed by nominated date,” go a long way toward managing expectations and maintaining trust in the process.

The Bottom Line

A well-run workplace investigation should take weeks, not months. If your investigation is dragging on indefinitely, the problem is rarely the complexity of the matter  – it’s the process around it.

Get the right investigator, give them what they need, and hold everyone accountable for keeping things moving. Your people deserve a timely resolution, and your organisation deserves findings it can actually rely on.

Need a workplace investigation conducted properly and efficiently? Segal Conflict Solutions provides independent, external workplace investigations in Sydney and across Australia. Get in touch for a confidential discussion about your matter.