Definition
A formal process of gathering facts and evidence to determine whether there is a case to answer in relation to an allegation of misconduct or poor performance. A thorough investigation is a prerequisite for a fair disciplinary process.
UK Context
The ACAS Code of Practice requires a reasonable investigation before disciplinary action. Employment tribunals apply the Burchell test: genuine belief, reasonable grounds, and reasonable investigation. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (not beyond reasonable doubt). Investigators should be trained and independent of the decision-making process.
Best Practices
- Appoint an investigator who is independent of the incident and will not chair the disciplinary hearing
- Complete investigations promptly — within 2-4 weeks for straightforward cases and 6-8 weeks for complex ones
- Keep detailed contemporaneous records of all evidence gathered and interviews conducted
- Produce a written investigation report with findings and a recommendation on whether there is a case to answer
Frequently Asked Questions
What standard of proof applies in workplace investigations?
The standard of proof in workplace disciplinary investigations is the balance of probabilities — i.e., whether it is more likely than not that the misconduct occurred. This is lower than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Can the same person investigate and chair the disciplinary hearing?
It is strongly recommended that different people carry out the investigation and chair the hearing. Having the same person do both undermines the fairness of the process and is likely to be criticised by an employment tribunal.
How long should an investigation take?
There is no statutory time limit, but investigations should be completed as quickly as reasonably possible. Best practice is 2-4 weeks for straightforward matters and 6-8 weeks for complex cases. Prolonged investigations, especially where the employee is suspended, can undermine fairness.