Common Subjects for Workplace Investigation: Misconduct, Grievances and Whistleblowing

Why the Nature of the Allegation Shapes the Investigation

Not all workplace investigations are the same. While the core principles of fairness, independence, evidence gathering and clear reasoning apply universally, the specific challenges an investigator faces, the evidence they need to gather, the legal framework they must apply, and the particular sensitivities they must manage all depend significantly on the nature of the allegations being investigated.

Workplace investigations fall into three broad categories: disciplinary and misconduct investigations, grievance investigations, and whistleblowing and compliance investigations. Each has its own legal framework, procedural requirements and distinctive challenges. Understanding the nature of the allegation before planning the investigation is essential for any investigator, HR professional or organisation commissioning external support.

This chapter provides a practical overview of each category. For the detailed treatment of all individual misconduct, grievance and whistleblowing subjects covered in the handbook, see The Workplace and Corporate Investigator’s Handbook.

This chapter is part of the Workplace and Corporate Investigations Knowledge Guide. If you need an independent investigator see my independent workplace investigator page.

Disciplinary and Misconduct Investigations

Disciplinary investigations are initiated where there is an allegation that an employee has breached the organisation’s rules, policies or expected standards of conduct. They are the most common form of workplace investigation and can cover an enormous range of conduct, from relatively minor policy breaches to serious matters involving dishonesty, violence, sexual misconduct or gross misconduct that may warrant summary dismissal.

The central purpose of a disciplinary investigation is to establish whether the alleged conduct occurred and, if so, whether it amounts to a breach of the relevant policy or standard. This requires the investigator to first understand the specific allegation clearly, then gather the evidence relevant to that allegation, assess that evidence carefully, and reach findings of fact that are grounded in what the evidence actually shows rather than what seems most plausible in the abstract.

Common disciplinary and misconduct subjects

Bullying and harassment investigations present the challenge that the conduct complained of is often a pattern of behaviour rather than a single incident. Individual episodes may appear relatively minor when viewed in isolation but carry a cumulative impact that is significant. The investigator must distinguish between management action that an employee found difficult and conduct that genuinely crosses the threshold of bullying or harassment under the organisation’s policy and, where relevant, the Equality Act 2010.

Discrimination investigations require careful understanding of the relevant protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and how direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation are legally defined. Evidence of discriminatory motivation is often indirect and circumstantial, which places significant demands on the investigator’s analytical skill.

Dishonesty, theft and fraud investigations rely heavily on documentary and digital evidence rather than witness recollection, and may involve complex patterns of behaviour over time rather than a single incident. For detailed guidance on these investigations see the chapter on considerations for particular types of investigation.

Sexual misconduct investigations are among the most sensitive and consequential any investigator will conduct. They require trauma-informed practice, careful management of the particular challenges these allegations present, and a level of experience that goes beyond what is needed for most other types of investigation. For detailed guidance see the chapter on considerations for particular types of investigation.

Breach of confidentiality investigations must establish what information was disclosed, to whom, in what circumstances, and whether the employee understood the confidentiality obligations that applied. The seriousness varies widely depending on the nature of the information, the recipient and the consequences of the disclosure. A key complication is distinguishing between unlawful disclosure and protected disclosure under whistleblowing legislation.

Substance misuse investigations must be conducted sensitively because substance misuse is frequently linked to health issues, stress or addiction that may constitute a disability under the Equality Act 2010. The investigator must establish the facts while remaining alert to the organisation’s obligations where a health condition is involved.

Unauthorised absence and attendance investigations require clear evidence of the absence, a fair opportunity for the employee to explain it, and careful consideration of whether any underlying health condition or personal circumstance is relevant to how the matter should be treated.

Conflict of interest investigations must establish whether the employee was aware of their obligation to declare the conflict, whether they did so, and whether the conflict resulted in any actual improper advantage. Perception of conflict can be as damaging as actual conflict, and investigations must assess both.

Grievance Investigations

Grievance investigations are initiated when an employee raises a formal complaint about their treatment, working conditions, a colleague’s behaviour or another aspect of their employment. They serve a different purpose from disciplinary investigations. Where a disciplinary investigation asks whether an employee has breached a rule or policy, a grievance investigation asks whether the organisation, a manager or a colleague has failed in some obligation to the employee raising the complaint.

This reversal of focus has practical implications for how the investigation is structured. The complainant in a grievance investigation is the person raising the concern, and the subject is often a manager or senior colleague against whom the complaint is directed. This creates particular sensitivity around power dynamics, the risk of retaliation, and the need for the investigator to maintain genuine impartiality between parties who may have very different levels of organisational power.

Common grievance subjects

Bullying and harassment grievances are among the most common. The same analytical challenges apply as in disciplinary investigations involving these allegations: the need to distinguish management action from misconduct, to assess cumulative impact rather than individual incidents in isolation, and to manage the power dynamics that often underlie these complaints.

Discrimination and unfair treatment grievances require the same careful legal analysis as discrimination-related disciplinary matters, applied from the perspective of the complainant rather than a subject of disciplinary action.

Workload and working conditions grievances often involve documentary evidence in the form of emails, rotas, timesheets and records that can be used to test whether the complainant’s account of unreasonable demands or conditions is substantiated.

Management style grievances require the investigator to assess whether the conduct complained of genuinely falls below the standard expected of a manager or whether it reflects a management approach that, however uncomfortable for the employee, was within the reasonable range of management discretion.

Retaliation grievances are particularly significant because they allege that the complainant has been treated adversely because of a protected act, such as raising a previous concern or supporting a colleague’s complaint. The timing and context of the alleged adverse treatment are critical evidence in these investigations.

Pay and working conditions disputes often rely primarily on documentary evidence: payslips, contracts, rotas, timesheets and correspondence. They require careful cross-checking of records rather than primarily witness-based analysis.

Overlapping Grievance and Disciplinary Matters

One of the most common and challenging investigation scenarios arises where a grievance and a disciplinary matter overlap. This frequently occurs where an employee raises a grievance after being the subject of disciplinary action, where a complainant’s grievance is accompanied by a counter-allegation of misconduct against the person they have complained about, or where the same set of events gives rise to both a complaint and a performance or conduct concern.

The ACAS Code of Practice recognises that these situations require careful management. The general principle is that the two processes should be kept separate where possible, with distinct investigations and distinct findings, rather than being conflated into a single process that blurs the respective roles of complainant and subject. Where separation is genuinely impossible because the matters are too closely interconnected, the investigator must be particularly careful to ensure that each party’s position is addressed fairly and that the findings on each matter are clearly distinguished.

Whistleblowing and Compliance Investigations

Whistleblowing investigations arise where an employee makes a disclosure about suspected wrongdoing that they believe to be in the public interest. The legal framework governing protected disclosures is set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996 as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Understanding this framework is essential before initiating any investigation that may involve a whistleblowing element.

A disclosure is protected where it is made in good faith, relates to a qualifying concern, is made to an appropriate person and the employee reasonably believes the information tends to show the relevant wrongdoing. Qualifying concerns include criminal offences, failure to comply with legal obligations, miscarriages of justice, dangers to health and safety, damage to the environment, and the deliberate concealment of any of these matters.

The significance of this for investigators is that where a disclosure may be protected, the investigation must approach it with particular care. Retaliation against a whistleblower, or an investigation that appears designed to discredit the whistleblower rather than examine the substance of the disclosure, carries serious legal consequences. Whistleblowing claims are not subject to the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, and compensation is uncapped.

Practical challenges in whistleblowing investigations

Whistleblowing investigations present several distinctive challenges. The disclosure may relate to conduct by senior individuals, which raises independence concerns about who should conduct the investigation. The whistleblower may wish to remain anonymous, which affects how their account can be used and tested. The subject matter of the disclosure may be technical or complex, requiring specialist knowledge to assess. And the organisation may face simultaneous obligations to investigate the disclosed wrongdoing and to protect the whistleblower from retaliation, which need to be managed carefully and distinctly.

Where the disclosure raises concerns that may need to be referred to a regulator or law enforcement agency, the investigation must be planned with that possibility in mind from the outset. For detailed guidance see the chapter on when police or regulators may need to be involved.

Choosing the Right Investigation Approach for the Subject Matter

The nature of the allegation should directly shape the investigation approach: the scope, the evidence that needs to be gathered, the witnesses who need to be interviewed, the specialist knowledge or support that may be required, and the particular sensitivities that must be managed. An investigator who approaches all allegations in the same generic way, without adapting their methodology to the specific demands of the subject matter, will produce investigations that are technically compliant but analytically inadequate for the complexity of the situation.

For more guidance on the investigator skills required to handle these categories of investigation effectively see the chapter on choosing the right workplace investigator.

Published Resources

My book The Workplace and Corporate Investigator’s Handbook covers all of these subjects in extensive detail, with individual sections addressing each misconduct and grievance subject, the specific evidence considerations that arise in each type of case, the common defences raised by subjects, vulnerable witness considerations, and the reputational and legal risks particular to each category. It includes real case studies from investigations I have conducted involving many of these subjects.

See all books.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a disciplinary investigation and a grievance investigation?

A disciplinary investigation examines whether an employee has breached a rule, policy or expected standard of conduct. The subject of the investigation is the employee against whom the allegation is made. A grievance investigation examines a complaint made by an employee about their treatment, a colleague’s conduct or another aspect of their employment. The subject of the investigation is the person or conduct the complaint is directed at. The two can overlap, particularly where a grievance is raised in the context of disciplinary proceedings or where counter-allegations are made.

What makes whistleblowing disclosures legally protected?

A whistleblowing disclosure is protected under the Employment Rights Act 1996 where it is made in good faith, relates to a qualifying concern such as a criminal offence, breach of legal obligation, health and safety risk or environmental damage, is made to an appropriate person, and the employee reasonably believes the information tends to show the relevant wrongdoing. Protected disclosure status gives the employee significant legal protection against retaliation, including the right to bring an uncapped compensation claim for detriment or dismissal connected to the disclosure.

Can a grievance and a disciplinary investigation run at the same time?

Yes, but they must be carefully managed as distinct processes with separate findings. The ACAS Code of Practice addresses this situation and requires that neither process is used to derail or undermine the other. Where matters are closely interconnected, the investigator must be particularly careful to ensure that each party’s position is addressed fairly and that the findings on each matter are clearly distinguished from one another.

What should an investigator do if they discover potential criminal conduct during an investigation?

The investigator should pause and take legal advice before proceeding. Where conduct may constitute a criminal offence, the organisation may have obligations to refer the matter to police or a regulator, and the internal investigation may need to be managed carefully to avoid prejudicing any external process. For detailed guidance see the chapter on when police or regulators may need to be involved.

How should an investigator handle a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower?

An anonymous disclosure creates evidential challenges because the account cannot be tested through interview and the source cannot be protected in the usual way. The investigator should assess the disclosure on its substance, seek corroborating evidence through other means, and be careful not to allow investigation steps that would tend to reveal the whistleblower’s identity. Whether and how to take action based on an anonymous disclosure will depend on the seriousness of the concern, the credibility of the account and the available corroborating evidence.

Get in Touch

If you need an independent investigator, an independent hearing chair, or training for your HR team, I would be glad to discuss your requirements.

Call 020 4538 0246, use the contact form below, or book a call directly.

Important disclaimer: This page is provided for general information and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content may not be legally accurate for your specific situation. You must not rely on anything on this page in respect of your legal rights or obligations. Always seek independent legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action. The author accepts no responsibility for any decisions made or outcomes arising from use of this material. If you would like specific advice, contact me here.

Handling misconduct, grievance and whistleblowing cases