Reaching conclusions and making recommendations in workplace investigations

A version of this article was first published in People Management in September 2025.

One of the most challenging aspects of a workplace investigation is assessing the evidence to reach an outcome. Whether the issue relates to a grievance or disciplinary matter this stage demands careful analysis of the evidence which can leave investigators struggling to make well-reasoned findings.

Understanding the purpose of the investigation

To help frame the analysis of the evidence, the investigator should remind themselves of the purpose of the investigation which ideally should have been established and included, at the outset, in the investigation plan. The purpose can vary. In some disciplinary-related investigations, the investigator may only be required to identify the facts that were/ were not established and to note any mitigating circumstances. In others, the investigator may also be required to make recommendations as to next steps, including whether or not there is a ‘case to answer’ – i.e. if it should be considered under a formal disciplinary process. By contrast, where the investigation concerns a grievance, the investigator should (usually) determine whether some or all of the concerns are valid and whether the grievance should be upheld in full, in part or dismissed.

Evaluating the evidence

To deliver an ordered and well-reasoned response, the investigator should address each of the issues under investigation in turn. This way the investigator can link each finding to the relevant evidence and explain how they reached their conclusion. This helps ensure transparency and allows the individual(s) involved to understand and, if necessary, challenge the reasoning.

To reach their conclusions, the investigator should consider the relevant evidence relating to each issue, be that witness evidence, documentary evidence, CCTV footage etc. Evidence may have been provided by witnesses or requested by the investigator. Not all evidence carries equal weight, and the investigator should assess and factor in the quality and reliability of the evidence when reaching their conclusions. First-hand witness accounts and documents that directly support or refute an allegation will usually carry more weight. The investigator should be careful how they evaluate second-hand accounts as hearsay evidence, by its nature, is inherently less reliable.

The investigator should be alive to the fact that memory lapses or subjective interpretations can influence how events are retold. People can also be partisan, subconsciously or otherwise. If there is other corroborating evidence which supports the witness account, such as emails sent at the time, calendar entries, etc, then this will also be helpful. It is important to remember that, in a workplace investigation, findings should be made ‘on the balance of probabilities’ (i.e. that the act/ omission was more likely than not to have happened), rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Conflicting evidence

Assessing differing witness accounts to establish whose account most closely represents what happened is challenging. When assessing witness credibility, the investigator should pay attention to the details and consistency of what is said. How clear is the witness’ recollection? What is the relationship between the witness and the individual concerned? Is the witness open in their responses? Are there inconsistencies in their version of events compared to other witnesses? The investigator should also consider if other evidence supports or goes against the witness’ account.

Equally it is important to bear in mind that there may be good reasons why a witness’ evidence does not present, at face value, as consistent and complete – for example in incidents involving trauma. Specialist input or training may be needed under these circumstances to help with the assessment of the evidence.

Making findings

Once the evidence has been assessed, the investigator must make their findings as to what they believe happened, on the balance of probabilities, in relation to each issue.

Findings should be robustly reasoned referencing the evidence for each issue. If the evidence is entirely inconclusive or there is no relevant evidence, the investigator may need to state that a finding cannot be made, however they should strive to make findings where possible.

In a grievance investigation, issues may be partially upheld – the investigator should explain the basis for this and be clear which elements are being upheld. Internal investigators can sometimes be reluctant to include findings which highlight mistakes by the employer if the issue is not being substantively upheld, but it is important from a fairness perspective to acknowledge where things haven’t been handled well.

Making recommendations

In some investigations, once the investigator has assessed the evidence and made their findings, they will need to make recommendations. Whether or not recommendations are expected should be clear from the outset and ideally set out in the investigation scope and plan. For a disciplinary investigation the investigator may be asked to conclude whether there is evidence to support the commencement of a disciplinary process (however, they must not make recommendations or comments about the likely outcome of that process). For a grievance, in most cases (but subject to any policy requirements), as well as deciding whether to uphold the grievance (in full or in part), the investigator will also often be asked to make recommendations about how to resolve the grievance. This may include proposing mediation between the parties, employee training, or changes to ways of working. However, ultimately, it is for the employer to decide whether to proceed with these.

A thorough and methodical approach to assessing the evidence and forming recommendations is key to ensuring fairness in any workplace investigation. From an employer perspective, this will ensure any future action is justified and the reasoning is clear. From an employee perspective, it will help to demonstrate that they have been listened to and will build trust in the employer’s processes.