When allegations arise in a school workplace – whether they’re about bullying, harassment, or some other form of unprofessional or inappropriate conduct – leaders often find themselves navigating unfamiliar territory. In these moments, knowing how to respond appropriately is critical. Yet, many principals, HR managers, and board members have never had to manage a workplace investigation in a school before.
As a specialist investigator working with schools, I regularly support education leaders through these challenging processes. This article offers an overview of what a workplace investigation is, how procedural fairness must be maintained, and when to consider engaging an independent investigator. If you’re seeking clarity, confidence, and compliance, you’re in the right place.
What is a workplace investigation?
A workplace investigation is a formal, structured, fact-finding process used by an employer to establish a set of facts or circumstances about conduct in the workplace. Workplace investigations usually focus on specific allegations or complaints against an employee.
A good employer doesn’t rush to respond to allegations before understanding the facts. That’s the purpose of a workplace investigation. A workplace investigation enables an employer to determine what has actually occurred, before deciding what action to take (if any).
A workplace investigation will often be triggered by an allegation or complaint. One employee might make formal allegations of bullying or harassment against another employee. But this is not always the case. Sometimes the employer might have suspicions that misconduct has occurred, such as theft or fraud, that doesn’t involve a formal complaint from another employee.
The aim of the workplace investigation is to determine whether the allegations are substantiated. In other words, whether the facts are proven or disproven. Often the investigation will seek to answer two questions:
- Are the allegations of misconduct substantiated? In other words, what has actually happened? Are the allegations true?
- If the allegations are substantiated, could the behaviour be considered misconduct? Does the behaviour actually breach any laws, standards or policies?
As a specialist workplace investigator in the education sector, most of my workplace investigations are completed in schools. The focus of a workplace investigation in a school setting is often workplace bullying or a breach of professional standards. However, I have also investigated other allegations in the education sector, including fraud and dishonesty. Fraud can, of course, end up being a criminal matter. As can “reportable conduct” in Australia. So, the stakes can sometimes be greater than internal sanctions or termination of employment.
What is procedural fairness in a workplace investigation?
You might have heard the term “procedural fairness”. Workplace investigations have to be procedurally fair. They have to comply with the principles of “natural justice”.
Let’s think about what this means for the person against whom the allegations are made. This person could be a senior leader, one of your support staff, a sports coach, or a member of your boarding house team. The person facing the allegations is often called the “Respondent” or the “Responding Party”. This title gives you a clue as to what rights need to be afforded to this person. You got it. They must be given a fair chance to respond to the allegations.
Opportunity to respond
This means you cannot make factual findings without giving them a fair hearing. Even if you think the case is “open and shut” you still have to afford them the opportunity to defend themselves.
A workplace investigation needs to include an interview with the person responding to the allegations. Sometimes the interview is best conducted at the start of the investigation process. In other situations, it’s best left until last. This is an assessment that needs to be made by the person conducting the investigation.
The purpose of this interview is to provide them with the opportunity to give their side of the story. To give their version of events. To give them the opportunity to respond to the allegations or complaint.
These interviews are challenging. The interviewer needs to obtain an account from the interviewee, but also needs to be able to detect and challenge any lies or inconsistencies in a manner that is legal and maintains the relationship with the employee.
The way in which questions are asked during the interview is crucial. The interviewer needs to have the ability to ask the right questions in the right way. Leading questions are to be avoided. And so are other forms of questioning that could be perceived as demonstrating bias or being accusatory or intimidatory.
At the conclusion of the interview, the interviewer needs to be able to conduct a credibility assessment of the information provided. They need to synthesise the information obtained with the rest of the evidence from the investigation and determine whether the interviewee is to be believed.
Support and representation
The interviewee generally needs to be given the option of having a support person present during the interview. Often they will also have the right to legal representation. This representation may come in the form of an employment advocate or a lawyer. Sometimes this support will be provided by a union.
Interviews often involve heightened emotions. They can easily become confrontational. They can become personal and the stakes are often high for all parties. Conducting an interview that gets to the truth while maintaining the trust and confidence of the interviewee is a complex combination of science and art.
For this reason, we recommend interviews in a workplace investigation be conducted by someone who is impartial and has the necessary interviewing skills, knowledge and experience. The interviewer should have a consistent proven interviewing methodology they can use for all parties. Interviews done badly and inconsistently can quickly threaten the integrity of the entire process and create lasting long-term damage.
Fairly informed about the allegations
In order for the respondent to be able to respond to the allegations, they have to be fairly informed about the nature of the allegations. They can’t be left guessing. This brings us to one of the most common challenges facing employers in the education sector: requests for anonymity.
A common issue in the education sector is people wanting to make complaints anonymously. I’ve spoken with employers who have started heading in this direction without being aware of the repercussions. Here are two issues to consider:
- It’s difficult to maintain procedural fairness if you are protecting the identity of the victim or complainant. The respondent has a right to be informed about the nature of the allegation or complaint. Often it’s impossible to fairly inform them if you cannot provide them with any information that might reveal the identity of the other party.
- Even if you do provide an anonymised version of the allegations, the context of the allegations can inadvertently identify the other party. This is a breach of trust between you and the reporting party.
Sometimes there are good reasons to consider affording anonymity. Your institution may have a “whisteblower policy” that outlines this process. But outside of a whisteblower framework, it is difficult to conduct a fair process whilst protecting the identify of all parties involved. If you are going down this track, I strongly suggest you obtain expert advice.
Objective decision-maker
Any decisions made at the conclusion of the investigation need to be made objectively. Without bias. This means the entire investigation process needs to be conducted objectively. Any potential conflict of interest needs to be declared immediately. At the conclusion of the investigation, you must be able to demonstrate that the process was free of bias.
Flexibility
Although consistency is important, there also needs to be flexibility in the process. The investigator needs to be able to demonstrate that they’ve taken into account the circumstances of every individual involved.
When should a school engage an independent workplace investigator?
One of the most frequently asked questions of me is when should a school engage an independent workplace investigator? In many cases, an investigation can be handled internally. It might be conducted by a member of the senior leadership team. Or your human resources department. But there are some circumstances when you might consider engaging an independent investigator like me. Here are some factors to consider:
Do you have the ability to conduct the investigation objectively?
It’s absolutely essential that a workplace investigation is carried out by someone who is impartial. There cannot be a bias. In a school, it can be very difficult to find this level of objectivity. School communities are so interconnected. Staff members know each other. There are connections between children. It’s difficult to find someone within your community who can be said to be without bias. What if the allegations are against the principal? If someone beneath the principal in the chain of command investigates, can you really expect them not to be influenced?
Do you have the time?
Most people I speak to underestimate the length of time it takes to conduct a workplace investigation. If someone tells you the process only takes a week or two, beware. A superficial investigation might take a couple of weeks. A fair investigation that stands up under scrutiny can take much longer. Sometimes the process can take months, or even more than a year. All the parties involved need to be advised about the process and given time to get their necessary supports in place. The interviews take time and could be delayed due to leave or sickness. An interview done properly can take anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours. Interviews often need to be fully transcribed. Each interviewee then needs the opportunity review their transcript before it’s finalised. A well-written investigation report takes hours, if not days, to write if you want it to stand up under scrutiny. For school staff who are already incredibly time-poor, asking them to conduct an investigation in a timely manner is simply not feasible.
Do you have the skills, knowledge and experience?
Investigation is a specialist skill. It requires careful communication with all parties. Interviewing is a task that requires specific training and regular practice. Writing a report that communicates the necessary information and will stand up in a court of law isn’t something just anyone can do. It may be that your school doesn’t have the internal capability to conduct the investigation.
For these reasons, I find most teachers and HR generalists are reluctant to take on the responsibility of a workplace investigation. Schools are often required to engage an independent investigator.
Conclusion
Managing allegations in a school setting is never easy – but it is possible to do it fairly, thoroughly, and with integrity. A sound workplace investigation doesn’t just protect the school legally; it builds trust in your leadership and ensures that everyone involved is treated with respect and due process.
If you’re facing a complex or sensitive matter and unsure whether your school can manage the investigation internally, I’m here to help. With extensive experience as an investigator and a background in the education sector, I bring objectivity, expertise, and professionalism to every case. Feel free to get in touch if you’d like to talk through your situation or learn more about how I work.
