No HR Person? Where to Start When Staff Conflict Lands on the Owner's Desk

Start by working out what kind of problem you have, then choose who helps. Most staff conflict is one of four things: a relationship breakdown, a conduct complaint, a policy gap or a leader skill issue. Each needs a different response, and not all of them need a lawyer.

A question that comes up often on forums like Reddit's r/smallbusiness is what to do when there is no HR person and two staff members are at odds. The usual answers fall into two camps. Some owners call a lawyer every time. Others handle it themselves and hope. Neither is right every time.

This guide is for owners and general managers of Australian businesses without an HR team, and for managers or staff caught up in a dispute who want to understand what is happening. It sets out how to sort the problem, what you can safely do in the first days, when an outside neutral helps, and what our $290 ex GST triage call covers. Conflict is not a bad word. It is usually a sign that something needs attention.

Key Takeaways

• There are two common mistakes: calling a lawyer for everything, or managing it alone for too long. Not every matter needs the same process.
• Sort the problem first. Relationship breakdown, conduct complaint, policy gap and leader skill issue each point to a different first step.
• In the first days you can listen separately, record facts and dates, avoid taking sides, check your policies, keep things confidential and set a follow-up time.
• You can't be neutral about your own people, and they know it. An outside neutral can run the conversation you can't.
• Calm, clear and early is usually better than perfect and too late. Silence and delay often hurt more than the original issue.
• Conflict Services is not a law firm and gives no legal advice. Legal questions belong with a lawyer.

Summary Table: Match the Problem to the First Step

Lawyer every time, or handle it yourself?

Neither works every time. Some matters need legal advice, such as dismissal, entitlements, claims, or anything involving shares or agreements. Many do not, and a legal process is rarely designed to repair a working relationship. Conflict Services is not a law firm and gives no legal advice.

The lawyer-every-time approach has a cost beyond the fee. A legal letter can harden positions before anyone has had a calm conversation. Staff who just needed to be heard can end up feeling like opponents.

The handle-it-yourself approach has its own risk. You are busy, you know both people, and you hope it settles. Sometimes it does. Often it simmers while everyone works around it.

A better rule is this: if it is a legal question, say so plainly and take it to a lawyer. We leave it there. If it is a people question, such as a relationship that has broken down, a manager who avoids hard conversations or a missing policy, you usually have more options than you think.

The Fair Work Ombudsman publishes free best practice guides for employers, including on resolving disputes at work. They are a sensible place to check your obligations before you decide anything.

How do you sort the problem first?

Sort the problem into one of four types: relationship breakdown, conduct complaint, policy gap or leader skill issue. The type decides the process. Many real situations mix two, which is fine. You are looking for the main driver so you pick a first step that fits, not a perfect label.

One distinction helps with all four: mediation asks what happens next, while 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. Choosing between them is often the hardest part.

1. Relationship breakdown

Imagine a 40-person manufacturer where the production supervisor and the warehouse lead no longer speak directly. Orders get passed through a third person. Nobody has done anything wrong in a formal sense. They simply stopped working together.

Signs it's this one: both people still do their jobs, but communication has gone indirect, other staff are being used as messengers, and there is no specific incident you could point to.

This is the territory where mediation tends to fit best. It also is not limited to two people. Plenty of matters involve three, four or a whole team.

2. Conduct complaint

Imagine a staff member emails you saying a team leader's behaviour towards them has been unfair and upsetting. They want it looked at. Now there is a specific complaint that needs a response, and how you respond matters.

Signs it's this one: someone has raised a specific concern about behaviour, they expect you to act on it, and the question is what actually happened.

This may need a formal investigation, though not always. We use the words concerns and complaints in the early stages, and allegations only once they are formally framed. A fair, independent process matters here, and the matter is scoped before anyone is interviewed. If the situation raises legal questions, those go to a lawyer.

3. Policy gap

Imagine a 70-person services business where two staff clash over who approves leave and roster swaps. Each thinks the other is being unreasonable. In truth, nobody ever wrote down who decides.

Signs it's this one: the same kind of argument keeps appearing with different people, and when you ask what the rule is, you get different answers.

Here the people are not the problem. A clear policy, explained properly, can settle the argument. HR guidance by the hour or a policy review is usually a better fit than mediation.

4. Leader skill issue

Imagine a capable technical specialist who was promoted to team leader. Their team keeps raising small frictions, and the leader avoids the hard conversations until they become big ones.

Signs it's this one: the friction follows one manager from team to team, hard conversations are put off, and decisions are unclear or reversed.

This is not a character flaw. It is a skill that can be built. Conflict coaching for the leader often does more than any amount of mediating after the fact.

What can you do yourself in the first days?

Listen to each person separately, write down facts and dates, avoid taking sides or promising outcomes, check your policies, keep it confidential and set a follow-up time. These six steps cost nothing and keep your options open. They are not a substitute for a process, but they stop things getting worse.

Our first 48 hours guide walks through this in more detail. Here is the short version.

1. Listen to each person separately. Give each person uninterrupted time. Ask what is happening, what they need and what they have already tried. Do not bring people together yet. Hearing everyone one-on-one first lowers the temperature.

2. Record facts and dates. Write down what was said, when and by whom. Keep it factual. Note what you saw yourself and what you were told. Avoid labels and conclusions.

3. Avoid taking sides or promising outcomes. It is natural to reassure someone, but promising that this will be sorted or that a person will be moved can come back to bite you. Say what you will do next, not how it will end.

4. Check your existing policies. Look at what you already have on complaints, conduct, grievances and flexible work. Even a basic policy tells you what you have promised staff you will do. If there is a gap, that tells you something too.

5. Keep it confidential. Share details only with people who need to know. Gossip is one of the fastest ways to turn a small problem into a team problem.

6. Set a follow-up time. Tell each person when you will come back to them, even if you have no news. This is the step owners skip most often, and it matters most. People are often reacting to the silence as much as to the issue.

Safe Work Australia's model code of practice on managing psychosocial hazards treats poor workplace relationships as something employers should actively manage. That is a good reason to act early and keep a record, without turning it into a legal exercise.

Why can't you be neutral about your own people?

Because you manage them, work with them and may have to decide the outcome. Someone who has advised one side, or who will decide the result, is not neutral, and staff know it. An outside neutral can run the conversation the boss cannot. This is about role, not about your fairness or good intentions.

A common belief is that a good manager can sort out any dispute between their own staff. Often you can sort out the work. But when you are the person who sets pay, hands out shifts and writes the reviews, people watch what you say for signs of whose side you are on. Even if you are scrupulously fair, the perception can undermine the process.

We use the phrase someone on nobody's side. That is what a mediator is. They do not decide who is right. They help people work out what happens next.

An outside neutral tends to help when:

• you have already heard one person's version at length
• you will have to make a decision about someone's role, pay or conduct
• people have asked for a transfer or are quietly avoiding each other
• the issue involves you, or a decision you made
• three or more people are involved and sides have formed

If you've been invited to mediation: what happens, in order

If you are a manager or staff member who has been asked to take part, here is what to expect. Mediation is voluntary and confidential.

1. Triage call. The person who arranged it talks through the situation with a mediator and receives written next-step recommendations.
2. Invitations. Participants are invited. You can ask questions before deciding whether to take part.
3. Separate preparation. Each person has a private conversation with the mediator beforehand. You set out what matters to you. Nothing happens in a joint session before this.
4. The session. It runs by video anywhere in Australia, with separate private rooms available, or in person on request. The mediator keeps the process fair and does not decide who is right.
5. Outcome note. If you reach agreement, a short outcome note records what you agreed to do.

To keep the process neutral, Conflict Services will not mediate a matter it has advised on. If an investigation has taken place, a different panel member mediates.

What does the $290 triage call cover?

The triage call is 45 minutes by video with Shiv Martin, a nationally accredited mediator, followed by a short email of next-step recommendations. It costs $290 ex GST, with no obligation and no retainer. The aim is to match your matter to the right process, not to sell you the biggest one.

There is no discount off a later mediation, and no lock-in. Some people finish the call and decide they can handle the next step themselves. That is a fine outcome.

The call is where we apply what we call Choose the right process. The options run from a management decision, through HR guidance, conflict coaching and mediation, to an independent investigation. Not every matter needs the same process. Depending on what you describe, the recommendations may point to one or more of these paths. The prices below are Conflict Services' own, all ex GST.

• Mediation. A half-day session is $2,900 for a 3.5-hour session with two participants. A full-day session is $4,900 for 7 hours, and is used for business partner disputes and complex matters. As a guide, each extra participant is about $700.
• HR guidance by the hour. $290 an hour, with no retainer. It suits a conduct matter you are unsure how to handle, or a one-off question about process.
• Policy review. Also $290 an hour. It suits the policy gap, where the real problem is that nobody knows the rule.
• A workplace investigation. Quoted after scoping. We scope the matter first, then give you an estimate, and revisit it with you if the matter changes. An independent investigator establishes facts and makes findings, fairly and without pre-judging anyone.
• Conflict coaching for leaders. $1,290 for four one-hour sessions and a plan. It suits the leader skill issue.
• A suggestion to get legal advice. Where a matter raises a legal question, we say so. We are not a law firm and give no legal advice, so that step is with a lawyer.

The email you receive afterwards is short and practical. It sets out the paths we think fit, in plain language, so you can decide what to do and share it with a business partner or manager if you need to.

To book, go to the triage call page.

Is there a free first step?

Yes. The Conflict Check is a free two-minute tool on our site that helps you get your thinking organised about what is happening before you decide anything. It takes about two minutes, costs nothing and commits you to nothing. If you already want a neutral view, book the triage call instead.

It suits owners who feel something is off but are not sure it is worth a call yet. It also suits managers who want to put their thoughts in order before speaking to anyone. You can take the free Conflict Check here.

If you are in a family business or partnership, we also have a free partner dispute checklist. Co-owners who disagree about where the business goes often avoid meetings and make decisions by email, and staff get pulled into it. That deserves its own process.

Why managing around a conflict costs more than it seems

Managing around a conflict feels free, but it rarely is. The cost shows up as your time, other people's patience and trust that wears thin. By the time the issue surfaces, people are reacting to the silence, the delay and the sense of unfairness as much as to the original problem.

Here is an illustrative scenario, not a real case. Imagine a 60-person business where two team leads fall out over who owns a shared process. The owner notices but is busy, and each lead is still delivering. So the owner smooths things over. They sit in on meetings, carry messages and quietly rearrange who works with whom.

After a few months, the problem has changed shape. The original disagreement is small. What the two leads now talk about is that nobody addressed it. Their teams have noticed. Someone asks for a transfer. The owner is spending a surprising amount of time on diplomacy, and still nothing has been resolved.

None of those people did anything wrong. The delay did the damage. A short, early conversation with a neutral, with each lead heard separately first, would have been proportionate when the issue was still small.

This is the core of how we think about it. Conflict is not a bad word. Treating it as shameful pushes it underground, where it grows. Treating it as information lets you respond early and in proportion. Calm, clear and early is usually better than perfect and too late.

It is also why the first step is sorting, not solving. If you start in the middle, with whatever is in front of you, and ask what kind of problem it is, the right help usually becomes clear.

If you are not sure where yours sits, book the triage call. Or start with the free Conflict Check and see how you feel.

References

• Fair Work Ombudsman, Best practice guides for employers
• Safe Work Australia, Model Code of Practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work
• Mediator Standards Board, National Mediator Accreditation System