Planning and Managing a Workplace Investigation

Why Planning Determines Quality

The quality of a workplace investigation is largely determined in the planning stage. An investigation that is properly scoped, correctly resourced and well-structured from the outset will produce clearer findings, withstand greater scrutiny and reach a defensible conclusion more efficiently than one that begins without a clear framework and tries to impose order retrospectively.

This chapter draws on The Workplace and Corporate Investigator’s Handbook to cover the key stages of investigation planning: setting the scope, choosing the right type of investigation, drafting terms of reference, project planning and managing timescales, managing the expectations of internal stakeholders, and the question of whether to suspend the subject during the investigation.

If you need an experienced independent investigator to plan and conduct a complex or sensitive investigation see my independent workplace investigator page.

Setting the Investigation Scope

Defining the scope of an investigation at the outset is one of the most important and most frequently underestimated steps in the process. A scope that is too narrow will miss relevant conduct and produce findings that fail to address the real problem. A scope that is too broad will generate unnecessary complexity, delay and cost, and may produce findings on matters that were never properly within scope, creating procedural unfairness.

The scope should be defined by reference to the specific allegations or matters being investigated, not by the investigator’s general curiosity or the organisation’s broader concerns. Where new issues emerge during the investigation that were not within the original scope, a decision must be made about whether to expand the scope, to investigate those issues separately, or to note them and refer them elsewhere. That decision should be documented.

Types of Investigation

Not all investigations are the same. Choosing the wrong type can waste time, confuse witnesses or create legal risk. The most common types are as follows.

An initial sift or prima facie investigation involves a brief, preliminary assessment of whether an allegation has sufficient foundation to warrant a full investigation. It does not make findings. It simply determines whether the matter crosses the threshold for further investigation. It is useful where allegations are vague, historical or where it is unclear whether a concern properly falls within the disciplinary or grievance procedure.

An evidence-gathering investigation focuses purely on collecting information without drawing conclusions. The investigator gathers documents and interviews witnesses but prepares a summary of facts rather than making findings on credibility, facts or misconduct. This approach is used where the organisation needs clarity before deciding whether formal action is required, or where the decision-maker is legally required to form their own judgment.

A fact-finding investigation establishes what did or did not happen. The investigator collects evidence, interviews witnesses, assesses credibility and reliability, and reaches factual conclusions on the balance of probabilities. Fact-finding is the most common form of workplace investigation. It makes findings of fact but does not determine guilt or misconduct, which is normally reserved to a senior internal manager at a subsequent disciplinary hearing.

A misconduct investigation goes further than fact-finding. Where an employee is alleged to have breached rules, policies or expected standards of behaviour, the investigator may be asked not only to make findings of fact but to assess those findings against the relevant policies and standards. These investigations require careful gathering and checking of evidence because outcomes may significantly affect someone’s employment.

Terms of Reference

A well-drafted set of terms of reference is one of the most valuable tools an investigation has. Terms of reference define the scope of the investigation, identify the specific issues to be investigated, set out the methodology the investigator will use, identify the parties and the investigator, establish timescales and reporting expectations, and confirm the standard of proof to be applied.

Clear terms of reference reduce the risk of scope creep, protect the investigator from pressure to stray outside the proper scope, give the subject a clear account of what is being investigated, and provide a structural framework for the investigation report. Where investigations are later challenged, clear terms of reference also demonstrate that the scope was properly defined from the outset.

Project Planning and Timescales

Workplace investigations take longer than most organisations expect. Complex investigations involving multiple allegations, multiple witnesses and significant documentary evidence routinely take several weeks or months. Setting realistic timescales at the planning stage, and communicating those timescales clearly to stakeholders, reduces pressure on the investigator and manages the expectations of all involved.

An investigation plan should identify the witnesses to be interviewed and the order in which they will be interviewed, the documents to be reviewed and how they will be obtained, the methodology for recording and transcribing interviews, the process for quality checking the report, and the milestones and target completion date. Where specialist expertise such as IT forensics, safeguarding advice or financial analysis is required, this should be identified and arranged at the planning stage rather than mid-investigation.

Managing Stakeholder Expectations

Internal stakeholders including HR, senior management and, in some cases, the board, will want to know how the investigation is progressing. Managing those expectations effectively is an important part of the investigator’s role and a common source of difficulty.

The investigator must keep stakeholders informed of progress and timescales without allowing those stakeholders to influence the investigation’s direction or findings. The organisation has a legitimate interest in knowing when the investigation will conclude and whether any urgent interim steps are needed. It does not have a legitimate interest in steering the investigator toward a particular outcome or receiving information about witness accounts before the investigation is complete.

Clear communication at the outset about what information will and will not be shared during the investigation, and why, reduces the risk of inappropriate pressure and protects the integrity of the process.

Suspension During the Investigation

The decision whether to suspend the subject of an investigation during the investigation process is one of the most consequential and most frequently mishandled decisions in the early stages of a matter. Suspension should be a neutral act, not a punitive one, and should be used only where it is genuinely necessary to protect the integrity of the investigation, to protect individuals from potential risk, or to manage an operational situation that cannot be managed otherwise.

Suspension carries significant costs: financial, because the suspended employee continues to be paid; operational, because their role must be covered; and relational, because suspension is experienced by the subject and observed by colleagues as a significant and stigmatising step. Unnecessary or disproportionate suspensions generate grievances, increase legal risk and damage trust in the process before it has properly begun.

Where suspension is considered necessary, it should be reviewed regularly and ended as soon as it is no longer required. The reasons for suspension, and the basis for any review, should be documented.

Planning and Managing a Workplace Investigation

Planning and Managing a Workplace Investigation

Why Planning Determines Quality

Setting the Investigation Scope

Types of Investigation

Terms of Reference

Project Planning and Timescales

Managing Stakeholder Expectations

Suspension During the Investigation

Further Reading