What UK Tribunals Keep Teaching Us About Workplace Investigations, and How to Avoid the Same Mistakes
When a workplace investigation goes wrong, it is rarely because an employer intended to be unfair.
More often, it happens because someone was under pressure, assumptions crept in unnoticed, or the process did not match the seriousness of the outcome. In the middle of all that sits a person, often anxious, confused, and deeply affected by what is happening around them.
UK employment tribunals see the same investigation failures time and again. They draw a clear line between decisions that are defensible and those that are not. But beyond legal risk, these cases also remind us of something more fundamental. How an investigation is handled shapes trust, wellbeing, and organisational culture long after the outcome is reached.
Below are three tribunal decisions that continue to teach important lessons, not just about fairness and evidence, but about compassion and care for everyone involved.
1. Jeffries v Apple Retail UK Ltd, The Cost of a Vague Investigation
When an investigation lacks clarity, fairness quickly becomes impossible.
In Jeffries v Apple Retail UK Ltd, the tribunal found the dismissal unfair not because the employer acted maliciously, but because the investigation was too weak to support a fair decision.
Three familiar failures stood out.
Unclear allegations
Employees have a legal and human right to understand what they are accused of. Vague or shifting allegations leave people unable to respond properly and create unnecessary distress.
Assumptions instead of testing evidence
The investigator did not properly explore contradictory accounts or alternative explanations. A fair investigation asks difficult questions of all evidence, not just the parts that feel comfortable.
Incomplete fact finding
Key witnesses were not spoken to and lines of enquiry were left unexplored. Even where wrongdoing may have occurred, gaps like this undermine confidence in the entire process.
The lesson - A dismissal can be overturned not because the employee is innocent, but because the organisation failed to take enough care to establish the truth. That failure is procedural, but the impact on the individual is deeply personal.
2. Ahmed v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, When Bias Creeps In
The most damaging investigation flaw is often the least visible.
In Ahmed v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, the tribunal found that bias, or the appearance of it, compromised the fairness of the process.
Bias does not always look like hostility or prejudice. More often, it shows up quietly.
Starting with a belief that the allegation is probably true
This shifts the role of the investigator from neutral fact finder to confirmation seeker.
Only speaking to the obvious witnesses
A fair process looks for evidence that might support or challenge the allegation, not just one version of events.
Treating inconsistencies as dishonesty
People under stress remember and describe events differently. A compassionate investigator seeks clarity, not quick conclusions.
The lesson - Even well intentioned investigations can feel unfair if they lean too heavily in one direction. Tribunals expect investigators to actively challenge their own assumptions. Employees expect to be listened to with openness and respect.
3. Burchell and Donovan v Greggs, What Reasonable Really Looks Like
When employers act reasonably, tribunals support them.
The Burchell test remains the foundation of unfair dismissal law. It asks whether the employer had a genuine belief, reasonable grounds, and carried out a reasonable investigation.
A clear modern example is Donovan v Greggs, where the tribunal upheld the dismissal because the investigation was handled properly. It was proportionate, consistent, neutral, and clearly documented.
Importantly, the tribunal did not say the employer was perfect. It said the employer was reasonable.
The lesson - Investigations do not have to be flawless. They do have to be structured, fair, thoughtful, and proportionate. When those qualities are present, both legal defensibility and human dignity are protected.
A Practical Investigation Quality Checklist
These principles appear again and again in tribunal decisions and good practice.
Clear written allegations that the employee can understand
A plan that sets out scope, witnesses, risks, and timescales
An impartial investigator with no prior involvement
A neutral starting position focused on finding facts
Evidence tested both for and against the allegation
Consistent and respectful interviews with proper notes
Clarification sought rather than assumptions made
Fair disclosure so the employee can respond meaningfully
A reasoned outcome that explains why, not just what
Clear documentation that shows how decisions were reached
Each of these points supports fairness. Together, they support compassion by reducing uncertainty, fear, and confusion for everyone involved.
Why Kind Investigations Still Need Skilled Leaders
Policies alone do not create fair investigations. People do.
Leaders need practical skills in asking open questions, managing conflict calmly, weighing evidence carefully, and recognising when their own involvement could affect neutrality. They also need the confidence to slow things down when emotions are high.
Without those skills, even well meaning managers can cause harm, often unintentionally.
When an Independent Investigator Is the Kindest Option
Sometimes independence is not just about legal protection. It is about care.
Independent investigators are particularly important where seniority, power imbalance, discrimination concerns, or broken trust make internal neutrality difficult. Independence reassures all parties that the process will be fair, and that no one is being judged behind closed doors.
It also creates space for repair afterwards. A well handled investigation can open the door to mediation, learning, and restored working relationships, rather than leaving lasting damage.
Conclusion, Fair Investigations Protect People, Not Just Organisations
Tribunal decisions like Jeffries, Ahmed, and Donovan tell us the same thing again and again.
A fair, structured, and well documented investigation is not just a legal requirement. It is a leadership responsibility.
Good investigations protect psychological safety, reinforce organisational values, and treat people with dignity at moments when they are often at their most vulnerable.
Poor investigations do the opposite.
I support organisations through independent investigations, workplace mediation, and investigation and ER skills training for leaders handling complex cases.
If you would like a confidential conversation about strengthening your investigation approach, or need support with a live issue, I would be very happy to help.
