When Should You Hire an External Workplace Investigator?
An employee raises a complaint about their manager. Your HR person knows both people well and works closely with the manager on a day-to-day basis.
Who should investigate?
For many employers, the difficult decision is not simply whether to look into a complaint. It's whether someone inside the organization can do the work fairly, competently, and without interference.
An external workplace investigator can provide independent fact-finding when internal relationships, reporting structures, complexity or capacity make an internal investigation difficult.
You don't need to outsource every workplace investigation. But you should be able to explain why the person you select is appropriate for the situation.
In this Article:
What does an external workplace investigator do?
An external workplace investigator is someone from outside your organization engaged to examine specific allegations.
Depending on the mandate, their work may include:
Clarifying the allegations and investigation scope;
Interviewing the people involved and relevant witnesses;
Reviewing documents, messages and other evidence;
Giving people a fair opportunity to respond;
Assessing conflicting accounts;
Making factual findings; and
Assessing those findings against the relevant workplace policies.
The investigator should approach the evidence with an open mind. Their job is not to prove the complaint, defend management or produce a predetermined outcome.
The employer remains responsible for its response to the findings, including employment decisions and corrective action. Recommendations may form part of the mandate, but the investigator’s role and the employer’s decision-making responsibilities should be clear.
Does every workplace complaint require an external investigator?
No.
Some investigations can be handled appropriately by a qualified internal person who is sufficiently removed from the matter.
However, deciding to investigate internally should follow an assessment of the situation. “We have an HR person” is not enough on its own.
Ask:
Does this person have the relevant investigation skills?
Are they involved in the events or likely to be a witness?
Do they report to someone named in the complaint?
Have they already advised on the disputed conduct?
Can they investigate without pressure about the outcome?
Can they complete the work promptly and thoroughly?
Also distinguish between whether an investigation is required and who should conduct it. Choosing an internal process does not remove the need for an appropriate response.
Legal requirements vary across Canada. Your policies, collective agreements and any regulator’s direction may also affect the choice.
Six situations where an external investigator deserves serious consideration
1. The allegations involve an owner or senior leader
An employee complains about the founder, executive director, CEO or another person with significant authority.
An internal investigator may depend on that person for their own job, budget, performance review or advancement. Even a capable HR professional can be placed in a difficult position.
For a small business, there may be no internal person with enough distance from the situation.
Outside support can help separate fact-finding from the reporting relationship. The organization should also identify an appropriate person or governing body to receive the report and make decisions.
An external investigator does not solve the independence problem if the person accused is allowed to control the evidence or dictate the findings.
2. Your internal investigator has a conflict of interest
Conflicts are not always obvious.
The proposed investigator may have witnessed an incident, received relevant messages, helped draft a disputed warning or advised a manager on the decision now being challenged.
For example, an HR consultant who helped management make a decision may later become a witness when an employee alleges that decision was retaliatory.
That does not automatically mean the original advice was wrong. It means the consultant’s involvement needs to be assessed before they take on the investigation.
Being external to the organization does not automatically make someone independent. Your regular HR provider, lawyer or consultant may also have prior involvement that affects their suitability.
Ask about conflicts before discussing the merits of the complaint in detail.
3. The allegations are serious, complex or extensive
Some complaints involve a clear event and a small number of people. Others involve months of alleged conduct, multiple respondents, several locations or substantial digital evidence.
Outside expertise may be particularly useful where there are:
Allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination or serious misconduct;
Allegations of retaliation after someone raised concerns;
Several overlapping complaints;
Significant power imbalances;
Conflicting accounts requiring careful credibility assessment; or
A substantial volume of messages, documents or other evidence.
Serious allegations do not automatically mean a particular outcome is warranted. They do increase the importance of a sound process.
A complex investigation also requires more than interviewing everyone and summarizing what they said. Someone needs to identify the relevant issues, test the evidence and explain how the findings were reached.
4. The organization’s earlier response is part of the complaint
An employee says they reported concerns several times and nothing happened. Leadership believes the matter was already resolved.
The investigation may now need to examine both the original conduct and how the organization responded.
If the people who handled the earlier concerns are potential witnesses, asking them to investigate their own response can undermine the process.
External support can be valuable when the question has expanded from “What happened?” to “What happened, who knew about it and how was it addressed?”
5. Internal trust has broken down
Employees may believe management has already decided what happened. The respondent may feel the complaint has been accepted as fact before they have been heard.
Neither perception proves the process is unfair. But both deserve attention.
An external investigator can provide greater distance from workplace relationships and previous disagreements. That can help establish confidence in the process, provided the investigator is appropriately qualified and actually works independently.
Outside involvement is not a guarantee that everyone will agree with the findings. The aim is a process that can be explained and supported by the evidence.
6. You do not have the skills or capacity internally
An investigation can become a substantial assignment alongside someone’s regular job.
Interviews need preparation. Evidence must be reviewed and secured. New information may require follow-up. Findings need to be documented clearly.
If the proposed investigator is already managing payroll, recruitment and daily employee issues, the investigation may keep being pushed aside.
Capacity is a legitimate reason to seek outside support. So is recognizing that a particular matter requires experience your team does not have.
Do not wait until a delayed or poorly scoped investigation becomes a second problem.
When an internal investigator may be appropriate
An internal investigation may make sense when the matter is relatively contained, a qualified person has sufficient independence and there is capacity to complete the work properly.
For example, a larger organization may have an experienced investigator at another location who has no connection to the parties.
Consideration | An internal investigator may be suitable when… | External support may be preferable when… |
Independence | They are removed from the events and reporting relationships | They are involved, a potential witness or accountable to a party |
Expertise | Their experience matches the allegations | The issues exceed their investigation experience |
Capacity | They can prioritize interviews, evidence review and reporting | The work will be repeatedly delayed |
Confidence in the process | There is a credible basis for a fair internal process | Prior handling or organizational relationships undermine that confidence |
The internal option should be assessed on its merits, just as the external option should.
Do you need a lawyer, an HR investigator or another specialist?
Choose based on the allegations, jurisdiction and mandate.
Workplace investigators may come from HR, legal, investigative or other relevant professional backgrounds. A title alone does not tell you whether someone has the skills for your matter.
Look for experience with:
Similar allegations and workplace settings;
Applicable workplace policies and legal requirements;
Fair interviewing and opportunities to respond;
Evidence and credibility assessment;
Confidential information; and
Clear, reasoned reports.
If legal advice is needed alongside fact-finding, clarify who will provide it and how the roles will work together.
What should you agree on before the investigation begins?
A clear mandate helps prevent confusion and unnecessary cost.
Confirm:
The allegations: What conduct is being examined? Avoid a vague instruction to “investigate the whole department.”
The applicable framework: Which policies, agreements and legal requirements inform the work?
The investigator’s role: Are they making factual findings, policy findings, recommendations or a defined combination?
The reporting relationship: Who can instruct the investigator, receive updates and receive the final report?
The process: How will interviews, evidence, representation or support needs and participant communications be handled?
Scope changes: What happens if new allegations arise?
Timing and cost: What assumptions support the estimate, and when will the investigator flag a change?
An investigation should be thorough enough for the circumstances. It should also remain focused on the questions it was commissioned to answer.
What should you do while arranging outside support?
Do not leave the workplace unmanaged while waiting for the investigator.
Preserve relevant information
Secure relevant emails, messages, schedules, records and other evidence before routine deletion or overwriting removes them.
Preserve the information without asking employees to conduct their own interviews or build competing cases.
Assess immediate risks
Consider whether interim measures are needed to protect people or the process.
Depending on the circumstances, that could involve reporting arrangements, work assignments, contact protocols or other measures.
Interim action should respond to the risk without presenting an allegation as a proven finding. Suspension is not an automatic requirement.
Communicate the next step
Let the people involved know who is managing the process, how they can provide relevant information and how updates will be communicated.
Avoid promising absolute confidentiality. Information may need to be shared to investigate fairly, take action or meet legal obligations.
Watch for retaliation
Pay attention to changes in treatment, scheduling, assignments, exclusion or pressure after concerns are raised.
A complaint should not become permission for the workplace to turn against either party.
What does an external workplace investigation cost?
There is no useful universal price without understanding the scope.
The main cost drivers include:
The number and complexity of allegations;
The number of parties and relevant witnesses;
The volume and condition of the evidence;
Follow-up interviews or newly identified issues;
Travel, interpretation or other support; and
The reporting requirements.
Ask for an estimate with clear assumptions and a process for approving significant changes.
Be cautious about choosing solely on the lowest hourly rate. Experience, focus and the quality of the work matter too.
You can help control cost by organizing relevant records, appointing one appropriate contact and agreeing on the mandate at the outset.
Common mistakes when hiring an external investigator
Hiring someone to confirm a decision already made
“We need a report supporting termination” is not an impartial investigation mandate.
If leadership has already formed a view, the investigator still needs room to consider evidence that supports or contradicts it.
Assuming a familiar adviser has no conflict
Familiarity with the organization can be useful. Prior involvement in the disputed events may be a problem. Assess both.
Waiting for a perfect written complaint
An employer may need to respond to concerns it becomes aware of even without a formal complaint form. Clarify what has been reported and assess the appropriate response.
Letting the scope expand without a decision
New allegations may require attention, but they should be assessed and incorporated deliberately. Otherwise, timelines, costs and participant expectations can become difficult to manage.
Treating the report as the end of the work
The employer still needs to consider findings, communicate what is required, take appropriate action and monitor the workplace afterward.
An investigation can establish what happened. It does not automatically repair working relationships or prevent the issue from recurring.
A practical test before you decide
Ask yourself:
“If the investigation finds something leadership does not want to hear, can this person reach that finding freely and explain it clearly?”
Then ask whether they have the skills, time and distance from the matter to do the work properly.
If you cannot answer those questions confidently, it is worth considering an external workplace investigator early.
Need help assessing a workplace complaint?
A&A provides workplace investigation support for employers dealing with harassment, bullying, retaliation, misconduct and other sensitive workplace concerns.
We can help assess whether external support is appropriate, identify potential conflicts and establish a clear investigation scope.
Stay Up to Date on HR & Employment Changes
Subscribe to the A&A newsletter for practical HR advice, employment updates and resources for managing your workplace.
Sources
Ontario: Workplace harassment investigations — investigator suitability, independence and circumstances in which an inspector may order an impartial investigation.
WorkSafeBC: Workplace bullying and harassment FAQs — internal and third-party investigations, complexity and impartiality.
Alberta: Workplace violence and harassment — investigation, reporting and confidentiality responsibilities.
Canadian Human Rights Commission: Human rights-based approach to workplace investigations — guidance for federally regulated workplaces, including investigator independence, selection and fair process.
