conduct-a-workplace-investigation

name	conduct-a-workplace-investigation
category	start
description	Conduct a fair, protected, evidence-led workplace investigation with independent authority and bounded findings. Use when allegations about misconduct, retaliation, harassment, fraud, safety, discrimination, or policy breaches require formal inquiry.

conduct-a-workplace-investigation

When to use

• Use when a formal fact-finding process may influence employment, safety, reporting, remediation, or organizational decisions.
• Use ordinary conflict resolution only when safety, retaliation, authority, evidence, and serious policy concerns are absent.

Preconditions

• Confirm qualified employment and jurisdictional advice, independent authority, investigator competence and conflicts, scope, decision standard, confidentiality limits, representation rights, safeguarding, privacy, data location, evidence systems, interim-action authority, and affected-person support.

Procedure

1. Issue an investigation mandate stating allegations, scope, authority, standard, roles, independence, reporting line, timeline, confidentiality, and excluded decisions.
2. Establish independent authority and alternates when leaders, investigators, HR, legal, unions, or reporting lines have actual or perceived conflicts.
3. Apply affected-person protection through safety, anti-retaliation, support, access, pay, reporting, accommodation, privacy, and proportionate interim measures.
4. Start evidence preservation for messages, files, systems, devices, access logs, records, physical items, decisions, and time-sensitive sources with custody controls.
5. Build an allegation and evidence matrix separating each claim, element, source, corroboration, contradiction, credibility consideration, gap, and finding status.
6. Plan interview order to preserve evidence and fairness; explain process, limits, representation, recording, confidentiality, and retaliation protections.
7. Give respondents meaningful notice and opportunity to address material allegations and adverse evidence within lawful safety boundaries.
8. Assess evidence consistently for reliability, directness, contemporaneity, plausibility, motive, consistency, and independent support without stereotypes.
9. Write bounded findings for each allegation using the authorized standard, contrary evidence, uncertainty, scope limits, and no disciplinary recommendation unless mandated.
10. Route findings, communication, corrective action, appeal or review, record retention, retaliation monitoring, systemic repair, and follow-through to authorized owners.

Failure plan

• Stop or reassign work when independence, competence, authority, safety, evidence integrity, representation, privacy, or procedural fairness cannot be maintained.
• Do not promise absolute confidentiality, predetermine guilt, retaliate, coach testimony, suppress contrary evidence, or expand surveillance casually.
• Escalate immediate danger, criminal, safeguarding, medical, regulatory, union, cross-border, and mandatory-reporting questions to qualified owners.

Done

• An investigation mandate proves independent authority, scope, roles, standard, conflicts, protections, and decision boundaries
• An evidence and allegation matrix preserves allegations, evidence, custody, interviews, corroboration, contradiction, gaps, and procedural fairness
• Affected-person protection and respondent opportunity are documented without prejudging findings
• A findings and follow-through report records bounded conclusions, contrary evidence, uncertainty, authorized decisions, communication, review, remediation, retention, and retaliation monitoring