When an allegation of bullying or harassment lands on a leader’s desk, the instinct is often to fear the allegation, take it personally, talk the complainant out of it, or turn it over to People and Culture/Human Resources and wash your hands of it. These are the same things that cause an investigation to go sideways. A rushed, informal, or hands-off response is exactly what turns a manageable complaint into a legal, financial, and reputational problem. A properly conducted workplace investigation does the opposite: it establishes what actually happened on a defensible record, enabling you to act with confidence.
Over the years, conducting and supporting workplace investigations across Canada, we’ve found that findings are reliable and valid when the process is fair, objective, and thoughtful. Based on TPR’s experience, this guide explains what a workplace investigation is, when you need one, and the best process to use.
What is a workplace investigation?
A workplace investigation is an objective, thorough, and fair process that examines allegations of misconduct by gathering evidence, assessing credibility, and issuing findings on a balance of probabilities. Its purpose is to establish facts, not to mediate a relationship or impose a solution. Done well, it helps an organization mitigate risk and avoid potentially costly outcomes.
This is the key distinction from mediation: mediation helps two people move forward; an investigation determines whether something happened on a balance of probabilities. When allegations need findings of fact, an investigation comes first.
When do you need an external investigator?
An external investigator makes sense when:
- There are complex allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination, or serious misconduct.
- The matter could have disciplinary, legal, or regulatory consequences.
- Internal capacity, neutrality, or perceived bias makes an in-house process risky.
- The parties, unions, associations, or legal teams expect an impartial, arm’s-length review.
- The in-house team does not have the resources to conduct the investigation.
How a fair investigation works
We follow a structured, six-step methodology. Each step protects the integrity and the defensibility of the findings.
- Clear terms of reference. Defining precisely what is being investigated, in what timeline, participants involved, and policies, regulations, and laws to be applied.
- Review of relevant policies, procedures, and laws. Grounding the investigation in the standards that actually apply.
- Review of necessary documentation. Establishing the documentary record.
- Interviews. Speaking with the complainant(s), respondent(s), and witness(es).
- Analysis. Weighing evidence and assessing credibility against the standard of proof and balance of probabilities.
- Report writing. Documenting findings clearly to withstand scrutiny.
What “trauma-informed, impartial, and evidence-focused” means in practice
These three words describe how we run every step. Impartial: no predetermined outcome, and a process parties can trust to be balanced. Evidence-focused: findings rest on what can be established, not on impressions. Trauma-informed: the process recognizes that complainants, respondents, and witnesses may carry stress or trauma and is conducted in ways that minimize further harm, thereby producing better evidence. For example, in recent case, a complainant alleged the respondent had sexually harassed her by touching her neck without consent and making sexually explicit comments about her body, but she had difficulty explaining what had occurred. People who have experienced stress, fear, humiliation, or trauma may not recall events in a linear way. It was critical for me to slow down the interview process, build in pauses, and invite the complainant to begin wherever she felt comfortable. Once she had provided her account, gentle clarifications were used to determine details, timelines, witnesses, documents, and specific words or behaviours. This approach allowed the participant to provide more complete and reliable evidence because she did not feel interrogated or forced to defend her reaction. By creating a calm, respectful, and predictable interview environment, we can obtain clearer evidence of what occurred, who was present, what was said, how the complainant and respondent acted and reacted, and what information could be corroborated by other sources. I have applied the same approach with respondents who are anxious or agitated. It goes without saying that investigation processes can feel hard on people, so as an investigator, I can get the details needed without necessarily being hard on people processing trauma.
We also support your internal investigators
Not every matter needs an external investigator. When you have capable people in-house, we assist them in creating interview questions, determining the witness list, managing unexpected challenges, and supporting complainants, respondents, and witnesses throughout the process. This allows your internal investigation to hold up. Recently, a client contacted us, stating that they had a new Human Resources Specialist conducting various investigations and needed procedural support. I began with one case in which I completed the investigation with the Specialist observing. Over the ensuing cases, I systematically turned the work over to the Specialist and acted as an extra set of eyes and ears. I reviewed all the documentation, created the interview list and questions for each party, and provided strategic advice to support the entire team as the investigation proceeded. I also assisted the Specialist in minimizing risk to the organization by creating recommendations to prevent such situations from occurring in the future.
What good looks like
Best practices are not determined by whether parties like the investigator, the process, or the outcome. An investigation process at its best produces defensible results based on the balance of probabilities.
As investigators at TPR, we don’t approach investigations as a popularity contest or an attempt to get repeated work. This has the potential to create biased results. We go into each case knowing we need to maintain a healthy distance from management, the union, and each participant. As an investigator, I ask many questions of everyone involved. I go after the details. I ask questions without judgment, and I make no assumptions. I want to ensure I can defend my findings in arbitration, which means I leave no stone unturned. This may not make me popular with participants, but it makes me fair, focused, and able to make findings substantiated by the data.
A solid, defensible investigation ensures participants know what the process entails, including who will be interviewed, the timeline for completing the work, what the final report will include, and how they can get support as they navigate it. There are, of course, times when investigations do not go as planned. For example, I conducted an investigation involving three complainants that took approximately 8 months to complete, well beyond the initial 3-month timeline. One of the complainants took sick leave during the process; not all witnesses were readily available; lawyers were involved on behalf of the respondent; and new allegations emerged. I added the new allegations to the list for investigation. In this case, it was my role to ensure all parties understood the delays, the reasons behind them, and what I was doing to mitigate further delays. An investigation process cannot be rushed.
Furthermore, a reliable investigation process ensures procedural fairness. For example, in workplace investigations, I have encountered situations in which either the union or management representatives propose witnesses they believe will validate their perspective. In those circumstances, I welcome proposed witnesses from all parties, but I remain responsible for determining whom to interview. Witness selection must be based on relevance, materiality, proportionality, and whether the person has direct, corroborative, contextual, or otherwise probative evidence. I cannot treat an investigation as a referendum, nor make findings based on which side can produce the greater number of supportive witnesses. Instead, I need to assess whether each proposed witness can assist in resolving the issues in dispute, clarifying the factual record, or testing the evidence already gathered. When faced with these situations, I ask each party to explain what relevant information each proposed witness is expected to provide. This allows me to distinguish between direct witnesses, contextual witnesses, corroborative witnesses, and witnesses whose evidence is largely duplicative, generalized, or character-based. I have reasonably declined to interview proposed witnesses when their evidence is repetitive, marginal, or insufficiently connected to the allegations. However, I document those decisions so the process remains transparent and defensible. This approach preserves procedural fairness while preventing either party from controlling the investigation, overwhelming the process, or turning the witness list into a strategic attempt to “stack the deck.”
Ultimately, an investigation process is good when it produces defensible findings on the balance of probabilities through an objective investigator, transparent processes, and procedural fairness.
Frequently asked questions
A workplace investigation is an objective, thorough, and fair process for examining allegations of misconduct, such as bullying or harassment. Turning Point Resolutions gathers evidence, assesses credibility, and determines findings to help organizations mitigate risk and avoid potentially costly outcomes.
Six steps: clear terms of reference, a review of relevant policies, procedures and laws, a review of documentation, interviews, analysis, and report writing.
Yes. Our processes are trauma-informed, impartial, and evidence-focused, conducted by experienced professionals so findings are fair and defensible.
Yes. We assist internal investigators by creating interview questions, determining the witness list, managing unexpected challenges, and supporting everyone involved throughout the process.
Getting it right is cheaper than getting it wrong
A defensible investigation protects your people and your organization. If you’re facing an allegation and weighing your options, we can help you choose the right path.
Contact Turning Point Resolutions or learn more about our workplace investigation services.
Related reading: Workplace Mediation in Canada · When conflict won’t resolve: workplace assessments
About the author
Dr. Raj Dhasi is the President of Turning Point Resolutions Inc. and a faculty member at the Justice Institute of British Columbia’s Centre for Conflict Resolution. She holds a Master’s degree in Organizational Conflict Analysis and Management and a Doctorate in Social Sciences, with over 25 years of experience supporting workplaces, school systems, and communities through complex conflict. LinkedIn