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

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.