Complaint Involving Someone on Your HR Team? When to Use an External Workplace Investigator

When a complaint involves a member of your own HR team, use an external workplace investigator. No one in that team can be neutral about a colleague, and the people involved will know it. An independent investigator has no reporting lines, no shared file access and no stake in the outcome.

This is a question HR people in Australian businesses ask often, including on r/HRAustralia. In a small HR function of one to three people, the team that would normally run an investigation is the team being complained about. There is no one left who is outside the situation. Conflict is not a bad word. A complaint is information that something important needs attention, and a calm, clear and early process makes it workable for everyone, including the person it is about.

This article explains what you can safely do yourself first, the other signs an inside person is too close, what an independent investigator actually does, how scoping works and why the fee is quoted afterwards. It is written plainly so that a complainant or respondent reading it can see what to expect.

Key Takeaways

• A complaint touching your HR team needs an outside investigator because HR is normally the neutral party, and that role disappears when HR is involved.
• Before anyone is engaged, you can acknowledge the complaint, keep it confidential, record what was raised, check your policy and secure HR files. Do not do informal fact-finding.
• HR is not the only place where inside neutrality breaks down. Senior respondents, personal relationships, prior involvement and small teams are all signs someone is too close.
• An independent investigator scopes the matter, interviews parties and witnesses, gives everyone a fair chance to respond, weighs the evidence and reports findings.
• Investigations are quoted after scoping, because allegations, witnesses, documents and timeframes vary. An upfront price would be a guess.
• Not every matter needs the same process. Mediation asks what happens next. An investigation asks what happened.

Summary Table

Why does a complaint involving HR need an outside investigator?

A complaint touching HR needs an outside investigator because HR is normally the neutral party, and that role disappears when HR is involved. The HR team shares reporting lines, files and working relationships with the person concerned. Even a careful internal process will look compromised to the people watching it.

You can't be neutral about your own people, and they know it. That is true of an owner, a manager and an HR coordinator alike. It is not a criticism of HR professionals. Most are scrupulous. The problem is structural, and it shows up in three places.

Reporting lines

In a business of 20 to 199 staff, the HR team often reports to the same general manager or owner as the person they would be investigating. If the HR manager investigates their own team member, their findings feed upward to the same boss who manages both of them. If a junior HR adviser is asked to investigate their manager, the power imbalance is obvious. Neither arrangement lets people trust the result.

Access to files

HR holds personnel files, complaint registers, emails about performance and often confidential records about other staff. When the complaint is about someone in HR, that person may be able to see who has complained, what was said and what evidence has been gathered. Even if they never look, the possibility damages confidence. An outside investigator works from a defined set of documents, and the business can restrict internal access while the matter runs.

Perceived bias

Fairness has to be seen as well as done. The complainant needs to believe their concern will be weighed properly. The HR team member needs to believe they will not be judged by people with a view already formed. An independent person with no history in the business gives both sides the same starting point. People are often reacting as much to doubt about the process as to the original issue, so removing that doubt early matters.

There is a related case. Sometimes the HR person is not the subject of the complaint but is a witness, or has already advised the manager involved. That also counts. Someone who has advised one side or will decide the outcome is not neutral.

What can you do yourself before engaging an investigator?

Before engaging anyone, acknowledge the complaint promptly in writing, keep it confidential, record what was raised in the person's own words, check your policy and set interim arrangements for HR files. Avoid informal fact-finding. These steps protect the process without pre-judging anything.

Calm, clear and early is usually better than perfect and too late. Silence and delay do more damage than most people expect. Here is what you can do in the first days.

1. Acknowledge the complaint. Reply in writing, thank the person for raising it and say what happens next. You do not need every answer. You need to show it has been received and taken seriously.
2. Keep it confidential. Share it only with the people who genuinely need to know. Tell the person who raised it that you are doing the same.
3. Record what was raised. Note the concerns in the person's own words, with dates and any documents they offer. Do not summarise or soften them.
4. Check your policy. Look at your grievance, code of conduct or complaints policy. Follow the steps it sets out, or note where it does not fit this situation.
5. Set interim arrangements. Decide who handles HR files while the matter is open. Often that means moving access to someone outside the HR team, such as the general manager, and limiting the HR person's access to records connected to the complaint. Interim arrangements are practical, not punitive, and should be explained that way to everyone.
6. Avoid informal fact-finding. Do not quietly ask colleagues what they saw, and do not ask the respondent for a quick explanation. Well-meant questions can compromise evidence, tip people off and make a later fair process harder.

Conflict Services is not a law firm and gives no legal advice. If you have a question about dismissal, entitlements, claims or your legal obligations, that is a question for a lawyer. Our free first 48 hours guide covers these early steps in more detail.

What other signs show an inside person is too close?

Beyond HR, an inside person is too close when the respondent is senior, when personal relationships exist, when the investigator has been involved before, or when the team is so small everyone knows everyone. Any one of these can undermine confidence in the outcome.

The HR scenario is the clearest case, but it is not the only one. Check for these signs.

• Senior respondents. If the complaint is about the owner, a director or the person who would normally make the decision, no internal person can safely assess it. Their own career sits in the room.
• Personal relationships. Friendships, family ties, past romantic relationships and long shared history all count. They do not have to affect the result to be seen as doing so.
• Prior involvement. If the would-be investigator has advised one side, sat in on earlier conversations or made comments about the people involved, they are already part of the story.
• Small teams. In a 30-person business, everyone knows everyone. Even a manager from another department will have lunch with someone involved. In family businesses it is harder still.
• Multiple people involved. Many matters involve three, four or a whole team. The more people affected, the more any internal connection matters.

A useful test: ask the person who raised the concern, and the person it is about, whether they would accept your proposed investigator as impartial. If you are unsure of both answers, you probably need someone outside.

What does an independent workplace investigator actually do?

An independent workplace investigator scopes the concerns, interviews the parties and witnesses, gives everyone a fair chance to respond, weighs the evidence and reports findings. They have no stake in the outcome. They establish what happened, and the business then decides what to do with the findings.

The simplest way to separate processes is this: mediation asks what happens next, and an investigation asks what happened. Mediation is voluntary, confidential and forward-looking, and people own the outcome. An investigation establishes facts, makes findings and can lead to action. When a complaint raises a possible breach of policy or conduct, the facts usually need to be established first.

A fair investigation generally runs in these stages.

1. Scoping. The investigator works with you to clarify what has been raised, what is in scope and what is not, who needs to be interviewed and what documents exist. Once the concerns are formally framed, they are put to the respondent as allegations.
2. Interviews. The investigator speaks with the complainant, the respondent and relevant witnesses. Each person can usually bring a support person.
3. A fair chance to respond. The respondent is told the specific allegations and given a genuine opportunity to answer them before any findings are made. Nothing is assumed in advance.
4. Weighing the evidence. The investigator tests accounts against documents, messages, timelines and each other, and decides what is more likely than not to have happened on each point.
5. A written report. The report sets out the allegations, the evidence considered, the findings and the reasoning. It does not decide the employment outcome. That remains with the business.

Because the investigator is independent, they can say what the evidence shows, including when it does not support the concern. That willingness to decide, in either direction, is what makes the process useful to both sides.

How does scoping work, and why is the fee quoted afterwards?

Scoping is the first step in a workplace investigation. The matter is defined first, then you receive an estimate. Allegations, witnesses, documents and timeframes vary, so a price set in advance would be a guess. If the matter changes, the estimate is revisited with you.

Two complaints that sound alike can be very different in size. One might involve a single conversation, two people and a few emails. Another might involve a pattern over months, a dozen witnesses and a large volume of records. Quoting a fixed price before knowing which one you have helps no one. It either overcharges the simple matter or leaves the complex one under-resourced.

Scoping works through questions like these:

• What exactly has been raised, and by whom?
• Which concerns are formally framed as allegations, and which are background?
• Who are the likely witnesses, and where are they based?
• What documents, messages or records exist, and who holds them?
• Are there any conflicts of interest on the business side that need managing?
• What timeframe is realistic given everyone's availability?

The scope matters as much for fairness as for cost. A clear scope tells the respondent exactly what they are answering. It tells the complainant what will and will not be examined. It stops the investigation drifting into unrelated grievances halfway through.

If you are not sure whether you need an investigation at all, talk it through first. The triage call is $290 ex GST for 45 minutes with Shiv Martin, a nationally accredited mediator, followed by written next-step recommendations. There is no obligation. It helps you sort which process fits before you commit to scoping. You can also book a scoping conversation directly. Sessions run by video anywhere in Australia.

What does a fair process look like for everyone involved?

A fair process gives everyone support persons, a clear timeline, regular updates and attention to wellbeing, then handles what follows the findings with care. It treats the complainant, respondent and witnesses as people, not as sides, and tells each of them what to expect.

Fairness is mostly about predictability. People can cope with a hard process. It is uncertainty and silence that wear them down. These elements make the difference.

• Support persons. Both the complainant and the respondent can usually bring someone to interviews for support. The support person is there to help, not to answer for them.
• Clear timelines. The scope sets out the expected steps and a realistic schedule, and any change is explained. No one should have to guess what is happening.
• Regular updates. Short, plain updates matter even when there is nothing new. Silence reads as unfairness.
• Wellbeing. Being complained about, or making a complaint, is stressful. Remind people of the employee assistance programme if you have one, keep working arrangements sensible and check in with them as people. Safe Work Australia's guidance on psychosocial hazards recognises that how a workplace handles a complaint is part of managing risk to people at work.
• Confidentiality. Information is shared only with those who need it, including inside the HR team.

What happens after the findings?

Once findings are delivered, the business decides what action, if any, is appropriate. The investigator reports and does not make the employment decision. Questions about discipline, dismissal or entitlements are for a lawyer.

Many relationships still need repair afterwards. Sometimes the working relationship between the people involved, or across a wider team, needs to be rebuilt. That is where mediation may help later. Mediation is voluntary and confidential, and people agree what happens next. Conflict Services will not mediate a matter it has advised on, and after an investigation a different panel member mediates. That keeps the neutrality clean. Our guide on choosing between mediation and investigation explains how the two fit together.

Why the HR team's own process is the hardest one to run fairly

Our view is that the instinct to handle it in-house is a good one, and it is wrong in this one case. Most HR teams are very good at fairness. That is exactly why they feel the discomfort when a colleague is involved and often try to manage it anyway. They shouldn't have to. Handing the matter to someone outside protects the HR person being complained about as much as it protects the complainant, because the finding will carry weight no one can dismiss as a favour or a grudge.

Imagine a 90-person business with a two-person HR team. A staff member raises a concern about one of the HR advisers. The general manager is unsure whether it is a conflict, a performance issue or a formal conduct matter, and two days pass without a reply to the complainant. The silence is now part of the problem. Nothing has been investigated, but the complainant has already started to wonder if anyone will act, and the HR adviser has heard whispers and is anxious.

What helps here is sorting the matter before choosing a process. Not every matter needs the same process. We use a simple frame, which we call Choose the right process: a management decision, HR guidance, conflict coaching, mediation or an independent investigation. A concern about an HR adviser's conduct may land at the last one. A tense working relationship with no misconduct raised may be better suited to mediation. Start in the middle: acknowledge the complaint, keep it confidential and then match the matter to the process, rather than to whoever happens to be free.

Conflict Services is a panel of accredited mediators, an independent workplace investigator, a leadership coach and HR and governance specialists. We work as someone on nobody's side. Calm, clear and fair is the aim, for the person who raised the concern and the person it is about.

If a complaint involves someone on your HR team, book a scoping conversation or the $290 ex GST triage call. Independent, calm help by video anywhere in Australia.

References

• Fair Work Ombudsman, Australian Government workplace relations information
• Safe Work Australia, Model Code of Practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work
• Australian Human Rights Commission, Workplace discrimination and harassment information