Today we start a new series of posts tackling the vexed area of workplace investigations. We will look at the background law, of which there is very little, and at best practice guidance, of which there is more than can possibly all be useful. We will offer some examples of investigations done badly and consider when and how it may be sensible to use someone outside the business. While we will hopefully take some of the anxiety out of doing these things yourself, we will also offer to do them for you, and explain why that can make legal as well as practical sense. Just for variety, we will – probably — not talk about vaccinations.

So here we go, starting with a demystification of the word itself – what exactly is an investigation? For something so important, there is a weird lack of definition to it – it has no technical description in employment law, takes no fixed form, is of no set length and requires no formal qualification. There are no hard-and-fast rules of evidence and you don’t have to wear a deerstalker and a tweed cape. Unless you really want to, that is. Far be it from me, etc. An investigation is at its root just the process by which an employer develops an adequate understanding of the facts relevant to any decision it needs to make in relation to one or more of its employees. That is most often in confrontational circumstances such as performance management or disciplinary or grievance procedures, but it could equally be carried out in cooperation with the...

Read Full Story: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/looking-workplace-investigations-part-1-...