An investigation should answer defined allegations, not validate a conclusion already reached. This commissioning checklist is for managers and advisers who need to set scope, protect records and review a reasoned report. It complements the longer Australian Workplace Investigation Field Guide. The applicable policy, employment instrument, workplace law and decision forum must be checked for the particular matter; procedural fairness is context dependent. The Fair Work Commission identifies an opportunity to respond and an impartial decision-maker as central features in its investigation guidance for registered organisations. FWC investigation guidance.
Issue a mandate that can be answered
Record the commissioner, investigator, decision-maker, alleged conduct, relevant dates/places, policy or duty, intended output and excluded issues. Check actual and apparent conflicts. Separate immediate safety or welfare measures from any finding about guilt. Decide who may alter scope if new allegations emerge. The investigator should know the standard and process required by the commissioning body, but should not be instructed to reach a preferred outcome.
Preserve records before interviews reshape recollection
Identify relevant email, chat, documents, rosters, CCTV, system logs and policy versions within lawful authority. Record the custodian, retention risk, hold instruction, collection method and access restrictions. Avoid collecting entire personal devices or accounts without authority and advice. Keep each source’s original format where feasible and separate working extracts from preserved records. ASD recommends detailed evidence logs that identify collector, date/time with time zone and item details. ACSC evidence guidance.
Put each allegation in an answerable form
Use a schedule with: alleged act or words; date or reasonable period; place or channel; policy issue; material presently supporting it; and what is uncertain. Avoid labels such as “bullying” without the conduct said to amount to it. Give the subject a meaningful opportunity to answer material adverse information before findings are finalised, with time and language/accessibility arrangements appropriate to the matter. If new adverse material changes the case, consider a further response. The FWC’s unfair-dismissal guidance shows why notice of the reason and an opportunity to respond matter, but the procedure required in a particular investigation depends on its context. FWC: opportunity to respond; FWC: procedural fairness in context.
Test accounts against records and alternatives
Ask each witness what they directly observed, what they learned from others and what could affect recall. Compare dates, messages, rosters and independent records. Do not count two retellings of one conversation as two independent observations. Put a material contradiction to the relevant person fairly. In the report, distinguish “not supported on the available evidence” from “disproved”.
Allegation analysis — hypothetical example
Allegation: a manager changed a performance score after the panel meeting on 4 August. The system history shows a change on 5 August by the manager’s account. The manager says an approved formula recalculated the score; a panel note refers to a permitted weighting correction. The investigator obtains the formula version, approval trail and access logs, and asks the manager and panel chair about the change. If the logs cannot distinguish manual edit from automated recalculation, the finding should state that limit rather than choose a story by instinct. Whether the change breached policy is a separate question tied to the version in force.
Review the report with a finding matrix
- For each allegation: identify the evidence for, evidence against, participant response, applicable standard, reasoning and finding.
- Identify missing material and why it was unavailable or not pursued; state how that affects confidence.
- Keep factual findings separate from disciplinary, safety or legal decisions reserved to the authorised decision-maker.
- Restrict distribution and confirm retention, privacy, whistleblower or privilege obligations with the relevant specialist when they arise.
Escalate promptly if there is an immediate safety risk, a possible protected disclosure, serious criminal allegation, contested surveillance or a conflict involving the decision-maker. Those issues may require legal, HR, safety, privacy or law-enforcement advice before routine interviews continue.