When a Complaint Lands on Your Desk: A Practical Guide to Workplace Investigations

Someone has come forward with a complaint. Maybe it was a formal written submission. Maybe it was a nervous knock on your office door followed by a conversation you were not expecting. Either way, you now have an obligation — and how you handle the next several steps matters enormously, both for the people involved and for the health of your organization.

Workplace investigations are one of the most consequential things an employer can undertake. Done well, they protect employees, establish trust, and demonstrate that your organization takes its obligations seriously. Additionally, in the future, if a leave of absence turns into a Human Rights complaint, you have a chronological source of information and the action steps you took; because no one can remember what happened exactly two years ago and in what order.

Done poorly — or not at all — investigations expose your organization to legal liability, erode workplace culture, and send a clear message to your team about what you actually stand for.

This post walks you through what triggers an investigation, how to approach it, and what a sound process looks like from start to finish.

What Triggers a Workplace Investigation?

Not every workplace conflict requires a formal investigation, but knowing when one is warranted is critical. In Alberta, several situations will typically require you to investigate:

Harassment and violence complaints under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety legislation (significantly strengthened through Bill 30 in 2018) requires employers to have a harassment and violence prevention policy, and when a complaint is made under that framework, a formal investigation process is expected. This includes psychological harassment, not just physical acts.

Human rights complaints. If a complaint involves discrimination based on a protected ground under the Alberta Human Rights Act — such as race, gender, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or family status — an investigation is not optional. These are serious allegations with serious consequences if mishandled. Be careful to the nuances that occur under Human Rights, for example, childcare disruptions or being pregnant are protected grounds under family status and sex.

Policy violations with significant consequences. Allegations of theft, fraud, breach of confidentiality, serious misconduct, or violations of your workplace policies that could lead to termination all warrant investigation before any decision is made. Acting without a proper process is one of the fastest routes to a wrongful dismissal claim.

Situations where your gut says something is wrong. Sometimes the trigger is not a formal complaint but a pattern of concerning behaviour, a complaint made on behalf of someone else, or information that surfaces during another conversation. If credible information points to potential misconduct, take it seriously.

The general principle is straightforward: when allegations are serious enough that they could affect someone’s employment, safety, or human rights, you investigate.

Step One: Receive the Complaint Properly

When a complaint comes forward — however it arrives — your first move is to have a focused conversation with the complainant. Listen without judgment. Do not minimize, do not immediately problem-solve, and do not make commitments you cannot keep. Your job in this initial meeting is to understand what is being alleged and whether a formal investigation is the right path forward.

After that conversation, you need the complaint in writing. This is not about creating bureaucracy for its own sake — it is about establishing a clear record of what is being alleged, by whom, and when. A written complaint does not need to be a legal brief. It should include what happened, when it happened, who was involved, any witnesses, and what outcome the complainant is hoping for. If the complainant needs support putting it in writing, assist them — but the substance of the complaint must come from them.

Step Two: Define the Scope of the Investigation

Before you do anything else, define your scope. This is one of the most important — and most frequently skipped — steps in the process.

The scope of the investigation defines what you are investigating and what you are not. It keeps the process focused, prevents scope creep, protects the respondent’s right to know what they are responding to, and ultimately makes your findings defensible.

Your scope should identify the specific allegations being investigated, the relevant time period, and the individuals involved. If additional concerns surface during the investigation, document them separately and determine whether they warrant their own process. Trying to investigate everything at once is a reliable way to end up with an investigation that is neither thorough nor fair.

Document your scope decision in writing before you begin. You will refer back to it repeatedly.

Step Three: Notify the Respondent

Once you have a written complaint and a defined scope of what the complaint is, the respondent — the person named in the complaint — must be notified that an investigation is taking place. This step is non-negotiable from a procedural fairness standpoint.

The respondent must know that a complaint has been made, they must have the opportunity to respond to the specific allegations, and in most circumstances, they should receive a copy of the written complaint. There are narrow situations where portions of a complaint might be withheld temporarily to protect the complainant’s immediate safety, but the default position is disclosure. A respondent cannot meaningfully respond to allegations they have not seen.

Notify the respondent in writing, explain the process that will follow, and give them a reasonable opportunity to prepare their response before they are interviewed.

Step Four: Determine Interim Measures

Before interviews begin, you need to consider whether any interim measures are appropriate while the investigation is underway. This is a practical and often difficult decision.

Interim measures are not disciplinary action — this distinction is critical and must be communicated clearly to everyone involved. They are temporary steps taken to allow the investigation to proceed without interference and to protect the individuals involved.

Common interim measures include:

•          Having one or both parties work from home temporarily

•          Adjusting schedules or reporting structures to minimize contact

•          Placing the respondent on a paid administrative leave

Suspension with pay during an investigation is not a finding of guilt. It is a management decision made to protect the integrity of the process. Frame it that way — in writing — when you communicate it. Suspension without pay is risky and can lead to constructive dismissal.

Not every investigation requires interim measures. Use your judgment based on the nature of the allegations, the working relationship between the parties, and the risk of interference or continued harm.

Step Five: Plan Your Interviews and Build a Consistent Process

Your investigation will involve three categories of interviews: the complainant, the respondent, and any witnesses. The order is typically complainant first, witnesses second, and respondent last — though this can vary depending on circumstances.

Consistency is everything. Use a similar framework for each interview. This does not mean you ask every person the exact same questions, but it does mean your approach is structured, your core questions are prepared in advance, and you are gathering information systematically rather than conversationally.

Start each interview with broader, open-ended questions. Ask the person to walk you through what they know or experienced in their own words before you ask anything specific. This approach yields more authentic and complete information than leading with narrow questions. Once you have the full picture in their words, then you can probe for specifics, clarify timelines, and follow up on inconsistencies. Refrain from leading questions as well — they make assumptions, give information away, and can create the appearance that you are leaning toward a particular conclusion before the process is complete.

Stay within scope. If an interviewee begins to surface concerns that fall outside the defined scope of your investigation, note them — but do not pursue them in depth during this process. Redirect politely and document the information separately. Past skeletons from many years back will surface. If they are relevant and if a pattern occurs, you can pursue further, but typically, the goal is to remain focused on the main issue or persons involved and not get off topic.

Witnesses should be interviewed about what they directly observed or have direct knowledge of. Hearsay and opinion are less valuable, though they can sometimes point you toward additional questions or relevant witnesses, or confirm someone’s credibility through corroborated stories and timelines.

Document every interview thoroughly. I typically record my interviews and retain a copy for use when writing my report and notes. Recording can be a valuable tool, particularly when combined with AI transcription software, which significantly reduces the administrative burden of documentation. That said, there are a few things to get right. At the start of every recorded interview, you must inform the participant that the recording is taking place and obtain their explicit verbal consent before proceeding — this is both a legal requirement under Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act and simply good practice. Some individuals may decline, in which case thorough manual or assisted note-taking is your fallback. If you use an AI transcription tool, be mindful of where that data is processed and stored, and ensure it aligns with your privacy obligations. Recordings and transcripts should be stored securely, retained for at least two years consistent with your investigation records obligations, and treated with the same discretion as all other investigation documentation.

Step Six: Address Confidentiality, Privacy, and Retaliation — Clearly and Early

Every person you speak with during the investigation should understand the privacy expectations of the process and the no-retaliation protections in place. These are not conversations to save for the end — raise them at the beginning of each interview and put them in writing from the outset.

At the start of each interview, explain that the investigation is confidential. Information shared during the process should not be discussed with coworkers. This is not about secrecy for its own sake — it is about protecting the integrity of the investigation and protecting all parties involved from unnecessary harm. Parties sharing information undermines the investigation and can lead to misinformation or a mismatch of information and recall. This is also a good opportunity to reinforce the no-retaliation expectation — both the protection it affords them and the obligation it places on them.

Retaliation is one of the most damaging things that can happen during or after an investigation. It can take many forms — exclusion, scheduling changes, increased scrutiny, hostile behaviour, or outright adverse employment action — and it sends a message to everyone watching that coming forward was a mistake. During the investigation, stay alert to signs of retaliation. If any are reported, address them immediately and separately from the primary investigation. Allowing retaliation to go unaddressed undermines the entire process and can expose your organization to additional liability.

Be honest about the limits of confidentiality as well. In Alberta, information gathered during an investigation may need to be disclosed in certain legal proceedings. You cannot promise absolute confidentiality, and you should not try. What you can commit to is that information will be handled with discretion, shared only with those who need it, and used only for the purposes of the investigation and any subsequent decision-making.

Privacy obligations under Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act also apply to how you collect, use, and store investigation records. Treat documentation with care.

What Happens at the End?

Once all interviews are complete and the evidence has been reviewed, the investigator prepares a report. That report summarizes the allegations, the evidence gathered, an assessment of credibility where relevant, and findings — on balance of probabilities — as to whether the alleged conduct occurred.

The findings go to the decision-maker, who determines what action, if any, is appropriate. The investigation and the decision are separate processes, and keeping them that way matters. The investigator finds the facts. The employer decides what to do with them. Internal HR may provide recommendations at times if that is the process, but some organizations keep the two processes separate.

Outcomes must be communicated to both parties. Neither party is entitled to know everything about what happens to the other, but both deserve to know that the process concluded and that action was taken.

A Final Word

Workplace investigations are not easy, and they are not meant to be taken lightly. They require careful planning, procedural discipline, and a genuine commitment to fairness — for everyone involved. If you are facing a situation where an investigation is warranted and you are not sure where to start, that is exactly the moment to bring in outside support.

Workplace investigations are one of the areas where having the right support makes all the difference. Red Rock HR provides external investigation services, process design, and guidance for employers who need a credible, independent process. Reach out at redrock@redrockhr.ca — we are here to help you get it right.

Red Rock HR Ltd.

~Strengthening Your Foundation.