How Thorough Does a Workplace Investigation Need to Be?
Sometimes something happens at work and you know you need to look into it but it’s not immediately clear how formal the response needs to be or how far you should go. A complaint may have been raised, there may be a conduct concern or you may simply have two very different versions of what happened.
For a small business, that can be harder still because the person who would normally investigate may already know the people involved or have heard part of the story.
Whatever the issue, the investigation needs to be thorough enough to help you understand what happened and fair enough to give the people involved a proper opportunity to explain their position. That means gathering the relevant information, following up the points that could affect the outcome and making sure the next decision is based on evidence rather than assumption.
This post is for: SME owners and managers who need to investigate a disciplinary or grievance issue and want to know what a sensible investigation looks like.
You’ll leave with: a practical way to decide what to investigate, who to speak to, what evidence to check and when you have enough information to move on.
This post is not: a guide to running the disciplinary hearing or deciding the sanction. Those are separate stages and shouldn’t be treated as part of the investigation.
If you want something more specific, these may help:
Handling Employee Misconduct in a UK Small Business: How to Respond Fairly
What Should You Do When an Employee Keeps Causing Problems?
Are You Missing These Important Details in your Disciplinary Process?
Start by being clear about what you’re investigating
Before arranging meetings or asking for statements, get clear on, and ideally write down, the issue you’re trying to establish. Investigations can become much wider than they need to be when the allegation is vague.
If the concern is that an employee altered a customer record without authority, for example, the investigation needs to establish what was changed, when, who had access, what the normal process was and what the employee says happened. It doesn’t automatically need to become a review of everything that person has done over the previous six months.
A short investigation plan can help. Set out the main issue, the evidence that may exist, the people who may have relevant information and any records that could be lost if they aren’t secured quickly. You can add to the plan if new information comes to light but it gives you a solid starting point.
The investigation is there to establish the facts
The investigator shouldn’t be trying to prove that the allegation is true. Their job is to find out what happened as far as they reasonably can and whether there’s a case that needs to be addressed. That means looking for information that supports the allegation and information that may contradict it. If something doesn’t fit with an email, rota, system record or another account, the difference needs to be explored.
It’s also worth checking how the concern first arose too. A manager may have been told that an employee “refused” an instruction when the actual exchange shows that the employee queried whether the work could be completed safely or within the time available. That may change what needs to be investigated.
Give the employee a proper opportunity to respond
Once you’re clear about the allegation or concern, speak to the employee involved and give them a proper opportunity to explain what happened from their point of view.
Tell them enough about the issue for them to understand what’s being looked into, then ask open questions and listen to their explanation. Their response may identify something that needs checking, such as another person who was involved, a document that hasn’t yet been considered or some wider context. That doesn’t mean you have to accept the employee’s explanation. It means you should consider what they’ve said and follow up any points that could affect the outcome of the investigation.
There’s no general statutory right to be accompanied at a disciplinary investigation meeting, although your own procedure may allow it and there may be circumstances where allowing a companion is sensible. If the matter progresses to a formal disciplinary hearing, different rights apply.
Speak to the people who can actually add something
Once you’ve heard the employee’s account, you’ll often have a clearer idea of who else needs to be spoken to. You don’t need to interview everyone who may have been nearby or who may know something about the situation. Speak to the people who saw, heard, did or received something relevant, including anyone identified through the employee’s explanation.
Think about what each person can actually add. Someone who witnessed the event directly may be useful. Someone who only heard about it afterwards probably won’t add much unless they received information or took action that’s relevant.
Witnesses should normally be told why you’re speaking to them and that the matter should be kept confidential. Their account should be recorded accurately and they should have the opportunity to check the notes or statement.
Check the evidence rather than relying on memory
Where records exist, use them. Depending on the issue, that could mean emails, messages, rotas, customer records, CCTV, system logs, attendance information, policies or training records.
Ask what evidence could reasonably help establish the point you’re looking in to. That keeps the investigation focused while making sure obvious sources aren’t missed.
Be careful with material that needs context. A short Teams message may look very different when the previous part of the exchange is included. A system record may show that something happened but not who was responsible. A policy may state the expected process but you may still need to check how it has worked in practice.
Follow up the points that could affect the outcome
A thorough investigation ensures that all significant points have been followed up. If an employee says a manager approved the action, check with the manager. If a witness says there may be CCTV, establish whether it exists before moving on. If two people give materially different accounts, consider whether another witness or a document could help explain the difference.
Sometimes there’ll still be two different versions of events. That’s not necessarily a problem. The investigation report can record where the evidence conflicts rather than trying to create certainty where none exists.
If a new allegation arises, decide whether it’s part of the existing issue or needs to be dealt with separately. You don’t have to pursue every minor inconsistency, but you should follow up points that could affect whether there’s a case to answer or the seriousness of what’s alleged.
Keep investigation and decision-making separate where you can
In misconduct cases, it’s sensible for the person investigating not to be the person who later conducts the disciplinary hearing where the size and resources of the business make that possible. The investigator gathers and assesses the information; the disciplinary manager considers the evidence and decides what action, if any, is appropriate.
That can be harder in a very small business. If you can’t separate the roles completely, think about what independence you can create. You may be able to use another senior person, bring in external support for a particularly sensitive matter or make sure someone who’s already expressed a strong view about the outcome isn’t asked to investigate it.
Know when you have enough information
An investigation can continue indefinitely if the standard becomes “we must know everything”. You don’t. You need enough information to make a reasonable decision about what should happen next.
Before closing the investigation, check whether the main allegation has been properly explored, whether the employee has had the chance to respond, whether relevant witnesses and records have been considered and whether any important contradictions still need following up. If there’s a gap that could materially affect the next decision, investigate it. If the remaining gaps are peripheral, it may be reasonable to stop.
The report should explain what was investigated, what evidence was considered, where accounts differed and what the investigator found. It shouldn’t overstate what the evidence proves. A useful final test is whether a manager who wasn’t involved could read the report and understand what was alleged, what was checked, what the employee said, where the evidence agreed or conflicted and why the investigator reached their conclusion.
If the investigation shows there may be a case to answer, the next stage is normally a disciplinary hearing rather than a decision being made within the investigation itself.
FAQs
Does every workplace complaint need a formal investigation?
No. Some issues can be resolved informally, depending on what’s been raised and the circumstances. Serious allegations, disputed facts or matters that could lead to formal action are more likely to need a structured investigation.
How long should an investigation take?
There’s no fixed timescale. A simple matter may be investigated quickly, while a case involving several witnesses or a large amount of evidence will take longer. Avoid unnecessary delay, keep people informed and allow more time if it’s genuinely needed.
Can the same person investigate and hold the disciplinary hearing?
Where practicable in a misconduct case, different people should carry out the investigation and disciplinary hearing. Very small businesses may not always be able to separate the roles completely, so consider what independence you can create and whether outside support would be sensible.
Disclaimer
This article provides general information and practical guidance. It isn’t legal advice. Workplace investigations, disciplinary matters and grievances depend on the circumstances, so specific advice may be needed for a live situation.
