Before I investigated psychosocial hazards at WorkSafe Victoria, I investigated crimes. Eleven years across New Zealand Police and Victoria Police, working across everything from volume crime to complex matters that went to court.
People don't usually draw a direct line between criminal investigations and workplace investigations. But they should. The principles that make a police investigation sound, procedural fairness, evidence integrity, structured interviewing, separating fact from speculation, are exactly the principles that most workplace investigations lack.
I've seen the consequences of that gap. Poorly run investigations that damage the people they're supposed to protect. Findings that don't hold up under scrutiny. Processes so flawed that they become a psychosocial hazard in their own right.
What policing taught me about evidence
In policing, evidence isn't optional. You gather it methodically, you preserve it carefully, and you present it in a way that can withstand challenge. If your evidence doesn't support your conclusion, you change your conclusion, not your evidence.
This sounds obvious. But in workplace investigations, the standard is often far lower. I've reviewed investigation reports where the findings were based almost entirely on the investigator's impression of who seemed more credible, with no documentary evidence gathered, no corroborating witnesses interviewed, and no effort to test competing accounts against objective facts.
A police investigation works to a brief of evidence. It identifies what needs to be proven, then sets out to find the evidence that either supports or contradicts each element. A workplace investigation should follow the same logic. The allegation defines the scope. The scope defines what evidence is needed. The evidence determines the finding.
When that sequence gets reversed, when the investigator starts with an assumption and works backwards to justify it, the investigation is compromised. In policing, that leads to wrongful outcomes. In workplace investigations, it leads to findings that are unfair, legally vulnerable, and actively harmful to the people involved.
Procedural fairness isn't a formality
Procedural fairness is the obligation to give all parties a genuine opportunity to respond to allegations and evidence before a finding is made and is fundamental to any credible investigation. In the criminal justice system, it's protected by statute and case law. In workplace investigations, it's often treated as an afterthought.
I've seen investigations where the respondent was told a complaint had been made, given 24 hours to respond, and then presented with findings they'd never had a meaningful chance to contest. I've seen investigations where the complainant was never told what evidence the respondent provided, denying them the opportunity to challenge or clarify. I've seen investigations where neither party was told who else had been interviewed, what questions were asked, or what standard of proof was being applied.
These aren't edge cases. They're common. And every one of them represents a failure of process that would not survive scrutiny in any properly governed investigation framework.
Procedural fairness protects the integrity of the investigation, not just the rights of the parties. An investigation that skips it may reach the right conclusion by luck, but it cannot demonstrate that it reached the right conclusion by process and that distinction matters when the findings are challenged.
Why this matters for psychosocial safety
Workplace investigations are one of the controls employers use to manage psychosocial hazards like bullying, harassment, and workplace conflict. When an investigation is done properly, it identifies whether harmful conduct occurred, provides a basis for corrective action, and demonstrates that the organisation takes these issues seriously.
When an investigation is done poorly, it makes things worse. An unfair process causes additional harm to both the complainant and the respondent. A flawed finding creates resentment and distrust. A slow or disorganised investigation prolongs uncertainty and stress for everyone involved.
This is something I saw repeatedly as a WorkSafe inspector: the investigation itself becoming a psychosocial hazard. Employers would engage an external investigator, hand over the complaint, and step back entirely, without checking whether the investigator had the skills, the methodology, or the procedural discipline to conduct the investigation properly.
The result was often an investigation that took months, produced a report with weak or contradictory findings, and left the workplace in worse shape than before the complaint was lodged.
What a rigorous workplace investigation looks like
A workplace investigation that meets the standard should follow many of the same principles as a well-run police investigation:
• Clear terms of reference that define the allegations, the scope, and the standard of proof before any evidence is collected
• A structured approach to gathering evidence, documents, communications, policies, records — before interviewing witnesses
• Investigative interviews that are planned, recorded (or noted contemporaneously), and conducted using open questioning techniques rather than leading questions
• Procedural fairness at every stage — both parties given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against them, with sufficient time and detail to do so meaningfully
• Findings based on the evidence gathered, assessed on the balance of probabilities, with clear reasoning that links the evidence to the conclusion
• A report that is structured, defensible, and capable of withstanding review
This doesn't mean workplace investigations need to replicate the criminal justice system. The standard of proof is different. In a criminal matter, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, the highest threshold in law. In a workplace investigation, it’s the balance of probabilities, whether the conduct more likely occurred than not. The bar is lower, but the obligation to reach it through sound evidence and fair process is no less important. But the discipline, the rigour of approach, the respect for evidence, the commitment to fairness, should be the same.
Choosing the right investigator
If you're engaging an external investigator, ask about their methodology. Ask how they conduct interviews. Ask how they apply procedural fairness. Ask what qualifications and experience they have in investigations.
A good investigator will welcome these questions because they know the process matters as much as the outcome.
Clear Boundaries conducts independent workplace investigations grounded in procedural fairness and investigative rigour. If you've received a complaint and need help responding, get in touch.