Information Centre · Employment Law
Workplace Investigations in Victoria: Common Mistakes Employers Make
A poorly handled workplace investigation can be more damaging to a Victorian employer than the underlying complaint. This guide explains when to investigate, the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, witness interviews, confidentiality, suspension, investigation reports, Fair Work Commission implications and the common mistakes that turn an internal HR matter into protracted litigation.
Key points
- Most flawed workplace investigations fail on process — not on the underlying conduct — and procedural mistakes are now the single biggest source of Fair Work Commission exposure for Victorian employers.
- Procedural fairness and natural justice require that the respondent knows the substance of the allegations, has a real opportunity to respond, and has their response considered by an impartial decision-maker before any adverse finding is made.
- Bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, serious misconduct and theft each require their own investigative approach — but all engage the same core duties of independence, confidentiality, evidence-gathering and reasoned findings.
- Suspension is a serious step that should be justified, confirmed in writing, on full pay (unless the contract permits otherwise), regularly reviewed and framed as a neutral measure pending investigation rather than as discipline.
- Investigation reports should set out terms of reference, methodology, particularised allegations, evidence, responses, findings on the balance of probabilities (Briginshaw where serious) and reasoning — and the disciplinary decision belongs to the employer, not the investigator.
- Investigations intersect with unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination, bullying and adverse-action regimes — early legal advice is materially cheaper than litigating the consequences of a flawed process.
A Geelong manufacturer receives an anonymous report alleging that a long-serving production supervisor has been bullying two younger workers. A Melbourne law firm learns from an exit interview that a partner has been sexually harassing a paralegal. A Bendigo medical practice discovers that the practice manager has been authorising fictitious invoices. A Footscray logistics business is served with a stop-bullying application in the Fair Work Commission by a worker it has just performance-managed. Each of these situations requires a workplace investigation — and in each, the way the investigation is conducted will materially shape the legal, financial and reputational outcome for the employer.
The legal framework for workplace investigations sits across the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic), the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) and the common law of contract and procedural fairness. The standards that the Fair Work Commission, the Federal Court and Victorian tribunals apply are clear and increasingly demanding. The number of investigations that go wrong because of avoidable process mistakes is far higher than it should be.
This article identifies the common mistakes Victorian employers make when investigating workplace complaints and sets out the principles that a well-run investigation should follow. It is general information only and not legal advice.
When a Workplace Investigation Should Be Commenced
A workplace investigation should be considered whenever credible information suggests conduct that, if proven, could:
- justify disciplinary action or termination;
- breach a workplace policy, code of conduct or contractual obligation;
- contravene the positive duty under section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) or the corresponding Victorian regime;
- breach work health and safety duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic);
- constitute bullying under section 789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth);
- create exposure under the workers compensation regime (mental injury claims arising from a poorly handled complaint are now routine); or
- attract regulator interest from the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, the Australian Human Rights Commission or WorkSafe Victoria.
The trigger does not have to be a formal complaint. It can be an anonymous report, an exit-interview disclosure, an allegation made to a manager in passing, information from a client, information from another worker or a regulator notification. Once an employer is on notice of credible information, the question is not whether to respond — it is how.
Complaints From Employees
Complaints should be received in a way that takes them seriously, preserves dignity, protects confidentiality and creates a clear record. Best practice includes a written complaints policy that identifies how complaints can be made, who they can be made to, what will happen next, the commitment to confidentiality, the prohibition on victimisation and the support available to the complainant. A complaint should be acknowledged in writing, the response timetable communicated, and the initial triage decision (full investigation, mediation, management response, no further action) made and documented by someone independent of the events complained about.
Bullying Allegations
Bullying is defined under section 789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) as repeated unreasonable behaviour by an individual or group towards a worker that creates a risk to health and safety. Reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner is expressly excluded. Distinguishing genuine bullying from performance management, robust feedback, unwelcome but lawful direction and ordinary workplace conflict is the most difficult and most important task in a bullying investigation. Investigators must engage with the pattern of behaviour over time, the impact on the worker, the context in which the conduct occurred and whether any management action genuinely satisfies the statutory exclusion. A finding that a manager has bullied a worker is career-changing for the manager and frequently the launchpad for a Fair Work Commission stop-bullying order under section 789FF, a workers compensation claim or a common-law negligence claim.
Sexual Harassment and Other Harassment Allegations
Sexual harassment is prohibited under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic). Since the Respect@Work reforms, employers owe a positive duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sex-based harassment, conduct that subjects a person to a hostile workplace environment on the ground of sex, and victimisation. The Australian Human Rights Commission has compliance and enforcement powers in relation to the positive duty. Investigations of sexual harassment should be trauma-informed, conducted by a trained investigator, keep the complainant and respondent properly separated, offer ongoing support and treat confidentiality as paramount. Other forms of harassment — racial, religious, disability, age — engage their own statutory regimes and require equivalent rigor.
Discrimination Complaints
Discrimination complaints engage the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), as well as the general-protections regime in Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act. An investigator must understand the legal definitions of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation, the relevant exceptions and the importance of comparator evidence. A common mistake is to treat a discrimination complaint as a personality clash and respond with team-building interventions, when the complaint is in substance a legal allegation with significant employer and personal exposure for the alleged discriminator.
Serious Misconduct Allegations
Serious misconduct is defined in regulation 1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) and includes wilful or deliberate behaviour inconsistent with the continuation of the employment, conduct causing serious and imminent risk to health and safety or to the reputation or viability of the business, theft, fraud, assault and intoxication. A finding of serious misconduct typically authorises summary termination — termination without notice. The downside of getting it wrong is significant: a successful unfair dismissal application that overturns a serious-misconduct dismissal exposes the business to reinstatement, back-pay and compensation. The investigation must therefore be rigorous, the allegations particularised in writing, the respondent given a real opportunity to respond, mitigating circumstances considered and the decision documented. For an overview of the substantive law, see our companion article on serious misconduct and termination.
Theft and Dishonesty Investigations
Investigations into theft, fraud, false expense claims, secret commissions, payroll manipulation, IP theft and similar dishonesty typically rely on documentary evidence — CCTV, system logs, financial records, swipe-card data, key-card audit trails, email forensics and customer or supplier statements. Care must be taken to preserve evidence, respect employee privacy under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic), avoid accusations before the evidence is reviewed, manage IT and finance access during the investigation and decide deliberately — with advice — whether to refer the matter to Victoria Police. Parallel criminal and disciplinary processes raise their own tactical and procedural issues that should not be navigated without legal advice.
Witness Interviews
Witnesses should be interviewed separately, in private, by a trained investigator who is independent of the events. Best practice includes:
- telling the witness the purpose of the interview, the confidentiality expectations and the prohibition on retaliation;
- offering an interview support person (and clarifying their non-advocate role);
- asking open, non-leading questions;
- taking comprehensive notes, reading them back to the witness, and asking the witness to confirm and sign;
- avoiding any indication of the investigator's preliminary view;
- considering whether recording the interview is appropriate, and obtaining consent where it is; and
- keeping witness identity confidential to the extent consistent with procedural fairness for the respondent.
Joint interviews, ambush interviews, interviews conducted by the respondent's reporting manager, and interviews that do not produce a contemporaneous written record are all common sources of evidentiary weakness when the matter is later challenged.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality protects the integrity of the investigation, the dignity of the complainant and respondent, the willingness of witnesses to come forward, and the legal interests of the business. Investigators should issue a written confidentiality direction at the start of the investigation, identify the legitimate exceptions (legal advice, regulator notification, support persons, treating practitioners) and treat breaches seriously. Confidentiality is not absolute — the respondent must be told the substance of the allegations in order to respond — but it should be the default, not an afterthought.
Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice
Procedural fairness (the modern label) and natural justice (the older common law label) describe the same obligation in this context: the person whose conduct is under investigation must be told the substance of the allegations against them in clear terms, given a real opportunity to respond before any adverse finding is made, and have their response considered by an impartial decision-maker. The Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court regularly set aside dismissals — and order reinstatement, back-pay and compensation — where procedural fairness has not been afforded, even where the underlying misconduct was proven. For a deeper treatment of these principles see our article on procedural fairness in workplace investigations.
Investigation Reports
A workplace investigation report should set out:
- the terms of reference and scope;
- the methodology, including documents reviewed and witnesses interviewed;
- each allegation expressed in clear, particularised factual terms;
- the evidence relevant to each allegation;
- the respondent's response;
- the investigator's findings on the balance of probabilities — applying the Briginshaw standard where the allegation is serious; and
- the reasoning that supports each finding (not merely the conclusion).
The investigator should ordinarily make findings of fact only. The decision about disciplinary outcome — warning, performance management, training, demotion, termination with notice, summary termination — belongs to the employer, exercised separately and with its own decision record. A conclusory report that substitutes allegation for finding, or that pre-empts the disciplinary decision, is materially worse than no report at all.
Suspension During an Investigation
Suspension is a serious step. It is not automatically justified by the making of a complaint. Suspension should be considered where the allegations are serious, where continued presence in the workplace risks further harm, evidence tampering or witness interference, or where the duties of the role are inconsistent with the nature of the allegations (a finance role and an allegation of theft, for example). Any suspension should be:
- on full pay unless the contract expressly permits otherwise;
- confirmed in writing, framed as a neutral measure pending investigation rather than as discipline;
- limited in duration and reviewed regularly;
- accompanied by clear directions about confidentiality, contact with colleagues and access to systems; and
- accompanied by appropriate support, including (where relevant) employee assistance program access.
Indefinite suspension without explanation, suspension for trivial complaints, suspension imposed as de facto discipline and suspension that follows the exercise of a workplace right are all frequent triggers for general protections and adverse-action claims under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act.
Common Mistakes That Create Legal Risk
The mistakes that most commonly turn an internal HR matter into expensive external litigation include:
- Failing to investigate, or starting too late, in the hope the complaint will go away;
- Appointing an investigator who lacks independence — the reporting manager, a board ally, a family friend, or a person previously involved in the events;
- Failing to put the allegations in writing in clear, particularised terms before asking the respondent to respond;
- Rushing the process under operational, client or board pressure;
- Conducting joint interviews or mediations where a formal investigation was required;
- Confidentiality breaches — gossip, loose talk in the lunch room, premature emails to the broader team;
- Suspension without justification or without written confirmation of its terms;
- Predetermining the outcome — drafting the disciplinary letter before the response is received;
- Treating reasonable management action as bullying (or vice versa);
- Ignoring the positive duty in sexual harassment matters;
- Producing a conclusory report that does not engage with the evidence; and
- Conflating findings with discipline, so that the investigator effectively dismisses the respondent rather than the employer doing so on its own deliberation.
Fair Work Commission Implications
A flawed investigation that culminates in dismissal creates exposure to multiple Fair Work jurisdictions. Under section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the Fair Work Commission, in considering whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, must take into account whether the employee was notified of the reason for dismissal, was given an opportunity to respond, was unreasonably refused a support person, and whether procedural fairness was otherwise denied. Remedies for unfair dismissal include reinstatement (with continuity of service and back-pay) or compensation up to the statutory cap (six months' wages, capped further by the high-income threshold).
Investigations that intersect with a workplace right — the making of a complaint, a request for flexible working, taking parental leave, raising a safety concern — frequently generate general protections claims under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act. General protections claims carry uncapped compensation and civil penalties, and place the evidentiary burden on the employer to prove that the adverse action was not taken for a prohibited reason. Investigations involving sex discrimination or sexual harassment can also be ventilated before the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Federal Court under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic). A poorly conducted investigation can — and often does — produce parallel proceedings in two or three of these jurisdictions simultaneously.
Practical Guidance for Victorian Employers
A defensible workplace investigation generally follows this shape:
- Triage the complaint quickly and document the triage decision;
- Appoint an independent investigator with appropriate experience;
- Issue terms of reference in writing, identifying the allegations, scope, methodology and timetable;
- Consider suspension deliberately and document the reasons;
- Issue a confidentiality direction to all participants;
- Gather evidence, including documents and witness statements, before formulating allegations;
- Particularise the allegations in writing to the respondent and give them a real opportunity (with a support person) to respond;
- Make findings on the balance of probabilities, applying the Briginshaw standard where relevant;
- Produce a reasoned written report; and
- Take the disciplinary decision separately, with its own decision record and procedural fairness process.
Investigations interact with adjacent employment-law obligations including modern award compliance, classification of the worker as employee or contractor, and post-employment restraints. For broader employment context see our articles on employee or contractor classification and annualised salaries and modern awards.
How Parke Lawyers Can Help
Parke Lawyers advises Victorian employers, directors and HR decision-makers on the full lifecycle of workplace investigations — drafting workplace investigation, bullying and sexual harassment policies, advising on whether and when to investigate, conducting or briefing independent investigations, advising on suspension, confidentiality and parallel regulator or criminal processes, reviewing investigation reports for evidentiary and procedural sufficiency, advising on the disciplinary outcome and termination, and defending unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination, bullying and adverse-action claims before the Fair Work Commission, the Federal Court, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Australian Human Rights Commission. Our employment law and commercial and business law teams work together so that classification, contract, investigation, discipline and litigation issues are handled coherently within a single matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
When should a Victorian employer commence a workplace investigation?
An investigation should be considered whenever credible information suggests conduct that, if proven, could justify disciplinary action, lead to termination, breach a workplace policy, breach the employer's positive duty under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), expose the business to a workers compensation or bullying claim, or breach work health and safety obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic). Common triggers include formal complaints, anonymous reports, whistleblower disclosures, exit-interview allegations, regulator contact and information from clients or other staff. Failing to investigate a credible complaint is itself a source of legal risk.
Do we have to investigate every complaint?
Not every complaint requires a full formal investigation, but every credible complaint requires a documented, proportionate response. Minor interpersonal issues can often be resolved through facilitated conversations, mediation, training or a documented management response. Serious allegations — bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, fraud, theft, safety breaches or conduct that could justify termination — should normally be investigated. The decision about whether to investigate, and at what level of formality, should itself be documented and made by someone independent of the events complained about.
What is procedural fairness in a workplace investigation?
Procedural fairness (often used interchangeably with natural justice in the employment context) requires that the person whose conduct is under investigation knows the substance of the allegations against them, has a genuine opportunity to respond before any adverse finding is made, and has their response considered by an impartial decision-maker. The Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court routinely set aside dismissals — and award compensation and reinstatement — where procedural fairness has not been afforded, even where the underlying misconduct was proven.
What is the difference between procedural fairness and natural justice?
In Australian employment law the two concepts are essentially the same — both describe the obligation to give a person facing an adverse decision notice of the case against them, a fair opportunity to be heard and an impartial decision-maker. Natural justice is the older common law label, procedural fairness the modern statutory and administrative-law equivalent. In a workplace investigation context, the practical rules are identical and the consequences of failure are the same.
How should witness interviews be conducted?
Witnesses should be interviewed separately, in a private setting, by a trained investigator who is independent of the events. Each witness should be told the purpose of the interview, the confidentiality expectations, that honest answers are required, and that retaliation is prohibited. The investigator should take comprehensive notes, read them back to the witness, ask the witness to confirm accuracy and sign the notes. Leading questions should be avoided. Where allegations are serious, an interview support person should be offered. Recording interviews can be appropriate but requires consent and a documented protocol.
Is the complainant entitled to attend the respondent's interview?
No. Workplace investigations are not adversarial litigation. The complainant is not entitled to be present when the respondent is interviewed, and vice versa. Each party is entitled to know the substance of the allegations (in the respondent's case) or the response (in the complainant's case, where this is relevant to the investigator's findings) — but not to confront each other in real time. Confusing investigation with cross-examination is a common mistake that creates safety, dignity and legal risk.
What does confidentiality actually require?
Confidentiality requires that information about the investigation — the identities of the complainant, respondent and witnesses, the substance of the allegations and the evidence gathered — is disclosed only on a strict need-to-know basis. It does not require absolute secrecy: the respondent must be told the substance of the allegations in order to respond, and findings will normally be communicated to those with a legitimate interest. A confidentiality direction should be issued in writing at the start of the investigation, breaches treated seriously, and the legitimate exceptions (legal advice, regulator notification, support persons, treating practitioners) made clear.
When can — or should — an employee be suspended during an investigation?
Suspension is a serious step and is not automatically appropriate just because a complaint has been made. It is generally justified where the allegations are serious, where continued presence in the workplace would risk further harm, evidence tampering or witness interference, or where ongoing performance of duties is inconsistent with the nature of the allegations (for example, a finance role and an allegation of theft). Any suspension should be on full pay (unless the contract expressly permits otherwise), confirmed in writing, framed as a neutral step pending investigation rather than disciplinary action, and reviewed regularly. Indefinite suspension without review is a frequent source of general protections and adverse-action claims.
How do we investigate bullying allegations under the Fair Work Act?
Bullying is defined under section 789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) as repeated unreasonable behaviour by an individual or group towards a worker that creates a risk to health and safety. Reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner is excluded. A bullying investigation must carefully distinguish between performance management, robust feedback or unwelcome but lawful direction (which are not bullying) and the genuine pattern of unreasonable behaviour that is. The Fair Work Commission can make stop-bullying orders under section 789FF, and a poorly handled bullying complaint often becomes the launching pad for a stop-bullying application, a workers compensation claim or a general protections claim.
How do we investigate sexual harassment allegations?
Sexual harassment is prohibited under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), and employers now bear a positive duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate it. An investigation should be conducted by an investigator trained in trauma-informed practice, separate the complainant and respondent at all times, offer ongoing support, communicate transparently about process and timeframes, take the question of confidentiality especially seriously, and assess not only the individual allegations but whether systemic, cultural or supervisory issues require independent attention. The Australian Human Rights Commission and the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission both publish detailed guidance for employers.
How do we investigate discrimination complaints?
Discrimination complaints — based on attributes protected under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) or the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) — require an investigator who understands the legal definitions of direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation and the relevant exceptions. Documentation, comparator evidence and patterns over time are central. A common mistake is to treat a discrimination complaint as a 'personality clash' rather than as a potential legal contravention with significant employer exposure and personal exposure for the alleged discriminator.
How are serious misconduct allegations investigated?
Serious misconduct is defined in the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) and includes wilful or deliberate behaviour inconsistent with continuing the employment, conduct causing serious risk to health, safety or the business's reputation, theft, fraud, assault and intoxication. Allegations of serious misconduct that may result in summary termination require an especially rigorous investigation — clear written allegations, full opportunity to respond, consideration of mitigating circumstances, careful weighing of the evidence and a documented decision. A finding of serious misconduct that does not withstand scrutiny in the Fair Work Commission produces an unfair dismissal outcome regardless of how serious the behaviour was.
How are theft and dishonesty investigations different?
Theft, fraud, falsified expense claims, secret commissions and similar conduct generally involve documentary evidence (CCTV, system logs, financial records, swipe-card data, emails) and frequently overlap with potential criminal investigation. Care must be taken to preserve evidence, respect employee privacy under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and any Workplace Privacy or Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) obligations, avoid accusations until the evidence is reviewed, and consider whether the matter should be referred to police. Whether to report to police is a discretionary commercial and legal judgement that should be made deliberately, not reflexively, and with advice.
What should an investigation report contain?
An investigation report should set out the terms of reference, the methodology, the documents reviewed, the witnesses interviewed, each allegation expressed in clear factual terms, the evidence relevant to each allegation, the response of the respondent, the investigator's findings on the balance of probabilities (the Briginshaw standard applies where the conduct alleged is serious) and the reasoning that supports each finding. The investigator should typically make findings of fact only; the decision about disciplinary outcome belongs to the employer, not the investigator. A poorly reasoned report — conclusory, lacking primary evidence, or substituting allegation for finding — is materially worse than no report at all.
What is the Briginshaw standard and when does it apply?
The Briginshaw standard (from Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336) recognises that, although the civil standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, the strength of the evidence required to satisfy that standard rises with the seriousness of the allegation and the consequences of an adverse finding. A finding of theft, sexual harassment or fraud requires materially stronger and more cogent evidence than a finding of administrative carelessness. Investigators should apply the standard expressly in serious cases and the report should make clear that they have done so.
Should an external investigator be appointed?
An external investigator should normally be considered where the allegations are against a senior executive or director, where they involve allegations of discrimination, sexual harassment or fraud, where the in-house investigator lacks independence (or could not be seen to be independent), where the matter is likely to be litigated, or where the in-house team does not have the time, training or specialist skill to do the work properly. The cost of an external investigator is materially less than the cost of defending an unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination or bullying claim that arises from a flawed in-house process.
What are the Fair Work Commission implications of a flawed investigation?
Where a dismissal follows a flawed investigation, the Fair Work Commission can find that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable under section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) — particularly where the dismissed employee was not notified of the reason for dismissal, not given an opportunity to respond, not allowed a support person or where procedural fairness was otherwise denied. Remedies include reinstatement (with continuity of service and back-pay) or compensation up to the statutory cap. Investigations that involve workplace rights — for example, suspension after a discrimination complaint — also frequently generate general protections claims under Part 3-1, where penalties and uncapped compensation can flow.
What are the most common mistakes Victorian employers make?
The most common mistakes are: failing to investigate at all, or starting too late; appointing an investigator who lacks independence or experience; failing to put the allegations to the respondent in clear terms and in writing; rushing the process under operational or board pressure; conducting joint interviews or 'mediations' where a formal investigation was required; failing to maintain confidentiality; suspending the respondent without proper justification or written confirmation; predetermining the outcome before evidence is gathered; failing to distinguish reasonable management action from bullying; ignoring the positive duty under sex discrimination law; producing a conclusory report that does not engage with the evidence; and acting on findings without separately and lawfully determining the disciplinary outcome.
How long should a workplace investigation take?
There is no fixed timeframe, but most workplace investigations should be capable of being completed within four to eight weeks of the complaint, depending on complexity, witness availability, suspension status and the seriousness of the allegations. Both parties should be kept informed about progress. Investigations that drag on for many months without explanation are themselves a source of psychological injury, complaints to regulators and applications for stop-bullying orders. The cause of delay should always be documented.
How can Parke Lawyers help?
Parke Lawyers advises Victorian employers, directors and HR decision-makers on the full lifecycle of workplace investigations — drafting workplace investigation, bullying and sexual harassment policies, advising on whether and when to investigate, conducting or briefing independent investigations, advising on suspension, confidentiality and parallel regulator or criminal processes, reviewing investigation reports for evidentiary and procedural sufficiency, advising on disciplinary outcome and termination, defending unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination, bullying and adverse-action claims, and responding to the Fair Work Commission, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and WorkSafe Victoria. A short conversation at the start of a matter typically saves an order of magnitude in cost at the end.
Employment Law
Get a workplace investigation right the first time.
Parke Lawyers advises Victorian employers on workplace investigations, procedural fairness, suspension, disciplinary outcomes and the defence of unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination and bullying claims. Early advice — before the investigation commences — is materially cheaper than litigating its consequences in the Fair Work Commission.
This article is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Please obtain advice tailored to your circumstances.