How to run a fair workplace investigation in Ireland

A fair workplace investigation establishes what happened, on the balance of probabilities, before anyone decides what to do about it. The person complained about must see the complaint in full, have time to respond and be allowed to bring a representative, and the investigator must have no stake in the result. Three statutory codes of practice set out the steps.

The codes that set the standard

As of October 2026 these are:

• Bullying. The Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work, S.I. No. 674 of 2020, a joint Workplace Relations Commission and Health and Safety Authority code in effect since 23 December 2020.
• Harassment and sexual harassment. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work, S.I. No. 106 of 2022.
• Discipline and grievance. The Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, S.I. No. 146 of 2000.

The codes do not create offences in themselves, but they are admissible in evidence before the Workplace Relations Commission, the Labour Court and the courts. The bullying code treats bullying and harassment as legally distinct, so check which code applies first.

When an investigation is needed

Not every complaint needs one. The bullying code says informal resolution should be considered first, and that moving to a formal process should be a reasoned management decision with the reasons recorded. The harassment code says a formal procedure should apply where the employee wants it, the conduct is too serious for informal handling, or informal attempts have failed. It adds that an employer who learns of harassment without a complaint still has a duty to act.

Terms of reference and the investigator

Write terms of reference before the first interview. The bullying code says they should cover the policy being followed, an indicative timescale and the reason for it, the scope and procedure, and confidentiality.

Under the bullying code the investigator can be a trained manager or, where there is any possible conflict of interest, an independent third party. The harassment code says investigators should not be connected with the allegation, and that an objection from the accused person should be properly considered. Bring in an external investigator when the complaint involves an owner or senior manager, when nobody internal is both trained and uninvolved, or when the investigator would otherwise also decide the outcome.

The right to know the complaint and respond

The codes spell out what fairness requires.

• The complaint is in writing, with precise details of incidents, dates and witnesses where possible.
• The person complained about gets the complaint in full, plus statements and other evidence, and time to consider it before responding.
• Both parties can comment on what the other has said.
• No assumption is made about guilt while the investigation runs.
• Both may be accompanied. The grievance and disciplinary code defines an employee representative as a colleague of the employee's choice or a registered trade union, but not a person or body unconnected with the enterprise. If someone asks to bring a solicitor, take advice before you answer.

Interviews, notes and the report

Meet the complainant, the person complained about and each witness separately and in confidence. Record every statement in writing. The bullying code says each person should get a copy of their own, with copies to both parties.

An investigation is fact finding. Under the bullying code the investigator decides whether the behaviour complained of occurred, and should not suggest or impose sanctions. The investigator may recommend whether the disciplinary procedure should be invoked, but the employer decides what happens next, and any disciplinary hearing is a separate process. The harassment code says the written report should set out the findings and the reasons for them and go to both parties. The bullying and harassment codes both call for a right of appeal to someone who was not involved.

Confidentiality, data protection and timescales

The harassment code says confidentiality is kept to the greatest extent consistent with a fair investigation, so the accused person still sees the evidence. Witness statements and notes about an identifiable person are personal data. In a Data Protection Commission case study on a workplace investigation, the employer was found in breach for not answering the employee's access request within one month.

None of the codes fixes a number of days: the bullying code asks for an indicative timescale and the harassment code for express time limits. According to Citizens Information, a harassment complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission must be made within 6 months of the last act, extendable by a further 6 months for reasonable cause. The harassment code says an internal investigation does not pause that limit.

Common mistakes

These are the ones to avoid.

• One person investigating, deciding the outcome and hearing the appeal
• Starting without written terms of reference
• Holding back the complaint or the statements from the person accused
• Presenting interim arrangements such as paid leave as a penalty, when the harassment code says they are not one
• Letting the process drift with no updates

FH Recruitment's HR consultancy, led by a consultant with a master's degree in human resource management, can help employers plan and run an investigation, with scope, fee and timings agreed in writing first. Where a matter is heading to the Workplace Relations Commission, FH prepares the employer and the paperwork and works alongside the employer's solicitor. This article is general information and not legal advice.

Sources

Sources checked on 6 October 2026.

• Irish Statute Book: S.I. No. 674 of 2020 (bullying, 22 December 2020), S.I. No. 106 of 2022 (harassment, 7 March 2022) and S.I. No. 146 of 2000 (grievance and disciplinary, 26 May 2000)
• Citizens Information, Harassment at work, edited 11 August 2026
• Data Protection Commission, case study, Processing in the context of a workplace investigation, 2019