Does every workplace complaint need a formal investigation?

No. An investigation is one pathway among several, including direct management action, a facilitated conversation, mediation, a narrow management inquiry, referral into another process, or acting on facts already admitted or not in dispute. The right pathway depends on what must be established, the consequences that may follow, the duties engaged and the evidence realistically available. Record the decision and the reasons for it, and revisit the choice if the picture changes.

What procedural fairness must a respondent receive?

Broadly, the respondent should know the substance of what is alleged and of the material relied on against them, have a genuine opportunity and enough time to respond, and have the question considered by a decision-maker with an open mind. How much process is owed is context-sensitive: it varies with what is being decided and the consequences that may follow, so a low-level conversation does not require the formality appropriate to a dismissal-track allegation.

Can an employee have a support person at a complaint interview?

There is no universal statutory entitlement to a support person at every complaint meeting. Section 387(d) of the Fair Work Act makes an employer's unreasonable refusal of a support person the employee asked for, at discussions relating to dismissal, a matter the Commission considers in unfair dismissal cases. Separately, a policy, enterprise agreement or contract may create an actual entitlement. Beyond those, offering a support person is generally good practice. Clarify in advance whether the role is support or advocacy under your policy.

What should an employer do if the complainant asks for no action?

Take the request seriously, but do not treat it as automatically ending the matter. Work health and safety duties, discrimination and harassment obligations and the employer's own policies may still require a response, particularly where there is a continuing risk to others. Discuss what the person is concerned about, explain what can and cannot be kept confidential, and consider options short of a full investigation. Where the person will not participate, the available evidence and fairness to any respondent may genuinely limit what findings or action are open.

Can an employer act on an anonymous complaint?

Yes, but with care. Anonymity does not switch off safety or legal responsibilities, and an anonymous report may justify checks such as reviewing records, monitoring a risk or improving a control. It does constrain fairness: an allegation cannot fairly ground a finding against an individual unless the substance and supporting material can be put to them and answered. Assess credibility and specificity, act on what can be verified independently, and record why the chosen response was proportionate.

Should the complainant receive the investigation report?

There is no automatic entitlement to a full report. Each party should be told the outcome as it affects them, in enough detail to understand what was decided and how the process ran — typically whether allegations were substantiated and that action has been taken where it has. Privacy, confidentiality obligations, the safety of participants and any legal professional privilege attaching to a report may all justify providing a summary or extracts instead. Whichever approach is adopted, apply it consistently and be able to explain the basis for it.

What does “not substantiated” mean?

It means the available evidence did not establish the allegation on the balance of probabilities. It does not mean the complaint was false, malicious or made in bad faith, and outcome letters should say so plainly. A finding that a complaint was deliberately fabricated is a separate and serious allegation that requires its own fair process before it is made or acted on.

How should an employer manage retaliation or victimisation after the complaint?

Tell participants what to report and to whom, and monitor for adverse treatment such as exclusion, unexplained roster or duty changes or a sudden shift in performance management. “Retaliation” is a practical description; the legal concepts are narrower and sit in separate regimes: victimisation prohibitions under federal, State and Territory discrimination law, which generally turn on detrimental treatment because a person made or supported a complaint; prohibitions on discriminatory, coercive or other prescribed conduct under the applicable work health and safety or occupational health and safety legislation, where the terminology and scope vary between jurisdictions; and the general protections in the Fair Work Act, which turn on whether adverse action was taken for a prohibited reason. Not every decision affecting a participant after a complaint is unlawful. Where the statutory presumption in s 361 is engaged in general-protections proceedings, the person alleged to have acted for a prohibited reason bears the onus of proving otherwise, so record contemporaneous, genuine reasons for decisions affecting participants.

Workplace Investigations

Managing a workplace complaint: the employer's guide after triage

What employers should do once a complaint has been received and triaged: confirming the pathway, interim measures, scope, procedural fairness, findings, communication and follow-through.

By the AWS Editorial Team12 February 2026Updated 4 August 2026

HR leader and manager reviewing workplace complaint intake

Key points

Confirm the pathway after triage rather than assuming it — a complaint does not automatically require an investigation.
Separate the roles of process owner, information gatherer and decision-maker where reasonably practicable, and test each for conflicts.
Interim measures are precautionary risk controls, not findings, and the burden should not fall by default on the complainant.
Define the allegations or issues precisely at the outset and control scope creep as new matters emerge.
How much process is owed depends on what is being decided and what may follow; the standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities.
Communicate outcomes to both parties, give every action an owner and a date, and monitor for retaliation or victimisation afterwards.

The stage this article covers

A complaint has been received, someone has checked whether anyone is at immediate risk, and a first view has been taken about how it should be handled. What follows — confirming that pathway, interim arrangements, working out what is in issue, gathering information fairly, deciding, telling people and following through — is the subject of this article.

The first hours are covered in our guide to early triage of workplace complaints; whether an outside investigator is needed in when to appoint an external workplace investigator; timing in how long an investigation should take; the statutory overlay in managing discrimination and harassment complaints; and suitability for workplace mediation.

Confirm the pathway rather than assume it

The pathway chosen at intake is a working decision made on incomplete information, so revisit it before the process starts in earnest. The realistic options include a manager dealing with the behaviour directly, a facilitated conversation, mediation, a targeted management inquiry, a formal investigation, referral into another process such as performance management or a WHS risk assessment, or a decision that no further factual inquiry is needed because the conduct is admitted or the issue is a systems problem.

A complaint does not automatically require an investigation, and seriousness does not settle the question on its own. Ask what has to be established for the employer to act, what consequences may follow, what safety and legal duties are engaged, whether anyone with a role has a conflict, what evidence realistically exists, and what participants need in order to take part. Those answers, not the label on the complaint form, point to the right pathway.

Write the decision down with short reasons, and treat it as reviewable. New information — an admission, a second complainant, a medical certificate, a police report — can properly move a matter from one pathway to another. What should not happen is silent drift, where a conversation about communication style becomes a misconduct investigation without anyone deciding it should.

Sort out who does what

Three roles need names. The process owner runs the matter and answers for timing and communication. The person gathering information conducts the interviews and assembles the material. The decision-maker decides what the employer does with the result. In smaller organisations one person may hold two roles. Where discipline is possible it is prudent and preferable, so far as reasonably practicable, for the decision-maker to be someone other than the investigator; that is good practice and risk management rather than an invariant legal rule. Keeping the roles apart makes it easier to show the outcome was decided on the material rather than pre-formed during the fieldwork.

Test each appointment for conflict — actual, and conflict a reasonable participant would perceive. Prior involvement, a close relationship with a party, reporting into the respondent, or having expressed a view all count. Where the respondent is senior or internal capability is thin, consider an external appointment.

Legal advice earns its place where the facts touch on dismissal, discrimination, a regulator, a criminal allegation or an executive. Do not assume that involving a lawyer or an external investigator makes the process privileged: privilege generally requires confidential communications or documents created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice, or providing legal services concerning existing or reasonably anticipated litigation. The retainer is relevant evidence, not determinative, and later use or disclosure may waive privilege that initially attached. If privilege matters, structure the engagement for it and take advice early.

Interim measures are risk controls, not verdicts

Welfare and safety management continues for the whole life of the matter. Psychosocial risk arising from the complaint itself — the conflict, the wait, the uncertainty — is a hazard the employer must manage under work health and safety law, and Safe Work Australia's psychosocial guidance and its material on workplace bullying are the practical starting points. Duties differ between jurisdictions: Victorian employers should also check WorkSafe Victoria's work-related stress guidance.

The available controls include changing a reporting line, adjusting rosters or locations, working from home, a no-contact protocol, additional supervision, paid leave, referral to an employee assistance provider, and steps to preserve records. Choose lawful and effective controls that eliminate risks so far as reasonably practicable or, where that is not reasonably practicable, reduce them so far as reasonably practicable; consult as required, consider the burden on participants, and confirm in writing that interim measures are precautionary and imply no finding.

Weigh the burden on both people. Moving the complainant because it is administratively easier may disadvantage the person who raised the concern, can appear retaliatory, undermines confidence in the process and may create further legal and employee-relations risk; sometimes they would prefer to move, so ask rather than assume. Use neutral wording with the team and set a review date.

Confidentiality needs the same care. Asking participants to keep the detail to themselves is reasonable; telling them they may not speak to anyone, including their doctor, union, lawyer or a regulator, is neither realistic nor enforceable. Explain what will be kept confidential and who will necessarily be told.

Define what is actually being addressed

Convert the complaint into specific, neutral statements: who is said to have done what, when, where, to whom, and which policy, standard or obligation is engaged. "Bullying" is a conclusion, not an allegation. Specific incidents described in plain terms are easier to test. If a concern is initially general or dates are uncertain, help the person identify examples and available records before deciding what can fairly be investigated.

Resist turning every concern into misconduct. Many complaints are about workload, unclear expectations, inconsistent management or a process that does not work. Those need a management response, not a finding against an individual.

A short written scope — the allegations or questions, what is out of scope, who decides and what the output will be — prevents most later argument. When something new surfaces mid-process, record it and either bring it into scope with fair notice or handle it separately. Do not absorb it quietly.

Anonymous complaints and requests for no action need judgement rather than a rule, and neither removes the employer's duties. An anonymous report of an unsafe practice may be verifiable from rosters and records; an anonymous allegation about a manager's conduct towards an unnamed person may be impossible to test fairly, though the employer can still check systems, monitor the area and act if more emerges. Where a complainant asks that nothing be done, take the underlying concern seriously — usually fear of retaliation or of losing control — and explain what can be adjusted. If risk to others or a legal duty requires action, say so rather than promising a silence that cannot be kept.

Procedural fairness in practice

The legal requirements for procedural fairness depend on the applicable statute, contract, industrial instrument and any binding policy or public-sector framework, as well as the decision and its consequences. The following safeguards are good practice even where no freestanding procedural-fairness duty applies. A conversation about email tone does not need the machinery of a dismissal-track allegation. Where adverse findings or action are possible, three things matter: the person knows the substance of what is alleged and of the material relied on against them, they have a genuine chance and enough time to respond, and the person deciding approaches it with an open mind.

Substance is the key word. There is no universal entitlement to every statement, document or witness name, and disclosure is sometimes limited for good reason — a real risk to a vulnerable witness, another person's health information, an active police matter. The test is practical: has enough been put for the person to give a meaningful answer?

Internal processes are not courts and the rules of evidence do not apply as they would in litigation. Findings of fact are made on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is serious or the consequences are grave, the familiar reasoning from Briginshaw applies: a decision-maker should assess the evidence carefully before reaching reasonable satisfaction, taking account of the allegation's seriousness, inherent likelihood and consequences. Findings may rest on sound inferences drawn from the evidence; what Briginshaw cautions against is reaching satisfaction on suspicion or on "inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences". That goes to the quality of proof required; the standard itself does not change.

Several pathways make no findings at all. A facilitated discussion, mediation or an inquiry into how a roster is built produces an outcome without anyone being found to have done anything. Tell participants at the start which process they are in.

Support people and representatives

There is no general statutory rule that an employer must offer a support person at every complaint meeting. Under the unfair dismissal criteria in s 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009, what the Commission considers is whether the employer unreasonably refused to allow a support person the employee asked for, at discussions relating to dismissal; the Commission's guidance on unreasonable refusal explains how that is assessed. Policies, enterprise agreements and contracts frequently give broader rights, and offering a support person is usually good practice.

Do not import dismissal law mechanically into every interview, or tell an employee in a low-level discussion that they have a legal right they may not have. Say what the organisation's own policy provides.

Be clear about the role. A support person sits in, takes notes and can ask for a break; they do not answer questions or run the case. That is an advocate, which some policies and agreements allow and others do not. Set the expectation in writing beforehand and check the support person is not a witness in the same matter. Confidentiality obligations do not arise automatically from attending: communicate reasonable expectations about discretion, and identify any obligations that actually apply — under a policy, an industrial instrument, a professional duty, or a lawful and reasonable direction — rather than imposing a blanket gag.

Gathering information

Plan the evidence before collecting it. For each allegation, ask what would prove or disprove it, who is likely to know, what documents exist, and what is proportionate.

Preserve material early and lawfully: suspend routine deletion of relevant email, messaging, rosters, access logs, CCTV and system records. Collect through the proper internal channel and record where each item came from and when.

Interview with an open mind and a plan. Put the substance of the allegation to the respondent, give the detail needed to answer it, and let them respond fully before testing the answer. Offer participants the chance to correct their record. Records made at the time usually carry more weight than accounts reconstructed later, though a file note can still be partial, self-serving or wrong.

Assess credibility and reliability separately: an honest witness may misremember a date, and a precise account may still be untrue. Look for inconsistency on matters that count, and consider corroboration and contemporaneous documents. Delay in raising a complaint is a factor, not proof of fabrication. Trauma-informed practice — pacing, explanation, breaks, support — improves participation and reduces harm, but says nothing about whether an account is true; treatment and weight are separate questions.

Privacy, surveillance and recording laws differ across Australian jurisdictions and by the type of material, and the employee-records position under the Privacy Act has its own limits described in the OAIC's guidance. Check the position that applies before accessing personal devices, camera footage, tracking data or messages, and take advice where the answer is unclear. Do not record meetings covertly or encourage participants to do so; announce and agree any recording, and note who holds it.

Processes running alongside

A complaint rarely sits on its own. The same facts may engage WHS or OHS duties and psychosocial risk controls, a workers' compensation claim, police or regulator involvement, an application to the Fair Work Commission to stop bullying or sexual harassment under Part 6-4B, a general protections claim, discrimination and positive-duty obligations under the framework the Australian Human Rights Commission administers, and obligations in an award, agreement, contract or policy.

Coordinate them consciously. None of these streams automatically pauses or decides another: a workers' compensation claim does not suspend the duty to address the conduct, and a police investigation does not always require the internal process to stop, though it may require sequencing. Decide what proceeds, what waits and why, and record it.

Be alert to general protections risk. Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), a complaint or inquiry in relation to employment can be a workplace right within s 341, and adverse action taken because a person exercised such a right contravenes s 340. Not every grievance qualifies. Where the statutory presumption in s 361 is engaged in general-protections proceedings, the person alleged to have acted for a prohibited reason bears the onus of proving otherwise. Reasons for any action affecting a participant should therefore be documented at the time, by the person who decided.

Findings, reports and the decision that follows

Decide before the work starts whether the process gathers facts only, makes findings, or recommends outcomes. Investigators who drift into recommending dismissal blur the line between the inquiry and the employer's decision.

Where findings are made, deal with each allegation separately and explain the reasoning: the evidence relied on, how conflicts in the accounts were resolved, and why the conclusion follows. Define the terms used. "Substantiated", "not substantiated", "partially substantiated" and "unable to determine" describe whether the available evidence establishes the allegation on the balance of probabilities. "Not substantiated" does not mean the complaint was false or made in bad faith, and outcome letters should say so. A finding that a complaint was deliberately fabricated is a serious allegation requiring its own process.

Findings and consequences are different decisions. The decision-maker must turn their own mind to the report, the responses, the policy, comparable matters, proportionality, and the person's record and explanation. A substantiated finding does not by itself make a dismissal lawful or fair; the decision-maker still has to consider whether the conduct is a valid reason, whether the person had a proper chance to respond, and what response is proportionate.

Telling people what happened

Set update points at the start and keep them. When something slips, say so and give a new date. Most complaints about complaint handling are complaints about silence.

Close the loop with both people. Each should be told the outcome as it affects them, in enough detail to understand what was decided and how the process ran — for a complainant, whether the allegations were substantiated and that action has been taken where it has, without disclosing another employee's discipline or personal information; for a respondent, the findings and any consequence.

Do not promise the full report to everyone. A copy, a summary or extracts may be appropriate; privacy, safety, confidentiality obligations or privilege sometimes prevent it. Decide on the facts, explain the basis for what is provided, and be consistent between the parties. Where a policy, agreement or basic fairness provides for review or appeal, say that it exists and how to use it.

Implementation and follow-up

Outcomes fail quietly when nobody owns them. Give each action an owner and a date — coaching, training, a policy clarification, a roster or reporting-line change — and check them off. Systemic actions matter as much as individual ones.

Watch for what happens next. Retaliation shows up in small things: exclusion from meetings, a sudden change in shifts, a first-ever negative review. Check in with the parties and the team at set intervals, and treat adverse action after a complaint as a live risk requiring documented reasons. Review interim measures on the same schedule and end them once they are no longer needed.

Keep the record complete and lawful: the complaint, the pathway decision and reasons, interim measures, the scope, the material gathered, the responses, the findings, the decision and the follow-up. Retention, access and destruction are governed by privacy law, record-keeping obligations, industrial instruments and policy, and vary with the type of record — set the rule with advice rather than inventing one.

Finally, look across matters periodically. De-identified trend data — where complaints arise, how long they take, what outcomes follow — shows patterns no individual file reveals. Handle it carefully in small teams, where de-identification is often illusory.

Two worked examples

A team leader complains that a colleague speaks over her in meetings, copies her manager into routine emails and reallocated a task without telling her. The events are largely undisputed and, after considering their context, any pattern of behaviour and the applicable policies and duties, the employer assesses that a management response is appropriate. The employer defines the issue as a working-relationship and role-clarity problem, has the manager address the conduct directly, offers a facilitated conversation with both parties' consent, clarifies who allocates work, and sets a check-in a month later. The decision and follow-up are recorded.

In a second matter, a senior manager is alleged to have made sexual comments to a junior employee on two occasions, one witnessed. He denies it, dismissal is a realistic outcome and there is a significant power imbalance. The employer changes the reporting line as a precaution, appoints an investigator with no prior involvement, defines the two allegations with dates and detail, puts the substance of the material to the manager with time to respond, and sends the findings to a decision-maker who took no part in the fieldwork. Discrimination obligations and the positive duty under s 47C of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) — to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate the relevant unlawful conduct as far as possible — may also be engaged, so advice is taken on prevention and systemic controls as well as the individual complaint.

How AWS supports complaints handling

AWS advises employers on pathway decisions, conducts investigations where one is genuinely required, supports facilitated and mediated resolutions, and reviews complaint-handling frameworks for fairness and consistency. Engagements are structured to preserve independence where the matter needs it. See our workplace investigations and workplace advisory services.

Post-triage handling checklist

Reconfirm the pathway against what is now known, and record the decision and short reasons.
Name the process owner, the person gathering information and the decision-maker, and check each for actual and perceived conflicts.
Put interim measures in place as precautionary risk controls, in neutral terms, with the burden fairly placed and a review date set.
Write a short scope: the allegations or questions in neutral terms, what is out of scope, and what the output will be.
Tell participants in writing what kind of process this is, what confidentiality means and what it does not, and what support is available.
Plan the evidence proportionately, preserve relevant records, and check privacy, surveillance and recording rules before collecting anything sensitive.
Put the substance of the allegations and adverse material to the respondent and allow a reasonable time to respond.
Make findings allegation by allegation on the balance of probabilities, with defined terminology and recorded reasoning.
Have the decision-maker separately consider the report, responses, policy, consistency and proportionality before any action.
Tell both parties the outcome relevant to them, explain any review or appeal option, and record the reasons for what was disclosed.
Assign owners and dates to individual and systemic actions, then verify completion.
Check for retaliation and team impact at set intervals, end interim measures when the grounds for maintaining them no longer exist, and apply the organisation's lawful retention rule to the file.

Frequently asked questions

Does every workplace complaint need a formal investigation?: No. An investigation is one pathway among several, including direct management action, a facilitated conversation, mediation, a narrow management inquiry, referral into another process, or acting on facts already admitted or not in dispute. The right pathway depends on what must be established, the consequences that may follow, the duties engaged and the evidence realistically available. Record the decision and the reasons for it, and revisit the choice if the picture changes.
What procedural fairness must a respondent receive?: Broadly, the respondent should know the substance of what is alleged and of the material relied on against them, have a genuine opportunity and enough time to respond, and have the question considered by a decision-maker with an open mind. How much process is owed is context-sensitive: it varies with what is being decided and the consequences that may follow, so a low-level conversation does not require the formality appropriate to a dismissal-track allegation.
Can an employee have a support person at a complaint interview?: There is no universal statutory entitlement to a support person at every complaint meeting. Section 387(d) of the Fair Work Act makes an employer's unreasonable refusal of a support person the employee asked for, at discussions relating to dismissal, a matter the Commission considers in unfair dismissal cases. Separately, a policy, enterprise agreement or contract may create an actual entitlement. Beyond those, offering a support person is generally good practice. Clarify in advance whether the role is support or advocacy under your policy.
What should an employer do if the complainant asks for no action?: Take the request seriously, but do not treat it as automatically ending the matter. Work health and safety duties, discrimination and harassment obligations and the employer's own policies may still require a response, particularly where there is a continuing risk to others. Discuss what the person is concerned about, explain what can and cannot be kept confidential, and consider options short of a full investigation. Where the person will not participate, the available evidence and fairness to any respondent may genuinely limit what findings or action are open.
Can an employer act on an anonymous complaint?: Yes, but with care. Anonymity does not switch off safety or legal responsibilities, and an anonymous report may justify checks such as reviewing records, monitoring a risk or improving a control. It does constrain fairness: an allegation cannot fairly ground a finding against an individual unless the substance and supporting material can be put to them and answered. Assess credibility and specificity, act on what can be verified independently, and record why the chosen response was proportionate.
Should the complainant receive the investigation report?: There is no automatic entitlement to a full report. Each party should be told the outcome as it affects them, in enough detail to understand what was decided and how the process ran — typically whether allegations were substantiated and that action has been taken where it has. Privacy, confidentiality obligations, the safety of participants and any legal professional privilege attaching to a report may all justify providing a summary or extracts instead. Whichever approach is adopted, apply it consistently and be able to explain the basis for it.
What does “not substantiated” mean?: It means the available evidence did not establish the allegation on the balance of probabilities. It does not mean the complaint was false, malicious or made in bad faith, and outcome letters should say so plainly. A finding that a complaint was deliberately fabricated is a separate and serious allegation that requires its own fair process before it is made or acted on.
How should an employer manage retaliation or victimisation after the complaint?: Tell participants what to report and to whom, and monitor for adverse treatment such as exclusion, unexplained roster or duty changes or a sudden shift in performance management. “Retaliation” is a practical description; the legal concepts are narrower and sit in separate regimes: victimisation prohibitions under federal, State and Territory discrimination law, which generally turn on detrimental treatment because a person made or supported a complaint; prohibitions on discriminatory, coercive or other prescribed conduct under the applicable work health and safety or occupational health and safety legislation, where the terminology and scope vary between jurisdictions; and the general protections in the Fair Work Act, which turn on whether adverse action was taken for a prohibited reason. Not every decision affecting a participant after a complaint is unlawful. Where the statutory presumption in s 361 is engaged in general-protections proceedings, the person alleged to have acted for a prohibited reason bears the onus of proving otherwise, so record contemporaneous, genuine reasons for decisions affecting participants.

Discuss this matter with AWS

Briefings can be scoped on a confidential basis. We respond within two business days.

Contact AWS

Related briefings

Workplace Investigations

When should an employer appoint an external workplace investigator?

A decision guide for choosing between an internal investigator, an external appointment or a hybrid model — external is not automatically the safer choice.

Read briefing →

Workplace Investigations

Early triage of workplace complaints: the first 24–72 hours

Before allegations are framed or a process begins, someone has to decide who owns the matter, what needs preserving and which pathway fits. This guide sets out that early assessment.

Read briefing →

Workplace Investigations

Managing discrimination and harassment complaints: an employer guide

Discrimination and harassment complaints turn on characterisation, risk control and fair process. This guide sets out how Australian employers map the issues, choose a pathway, make defensible findings and meet the positive duty.

Read briefing →