We recently had one of the most valuable sessions in our Workplace Investigation series. Not because we shared our process. But because someone from the other side explained exactly how he unpicks it.
Nathan Vidini, founder of AltraLaw, the UK's first not-for-profit law firm, joined us to share what he looks for when he's representing the employee. After 20 years doing this, he knows where investigations fall apart.
Here's what we learned.
1. The investigator is the first thing he looks at
Before reading a single page of a report, Nathan asks: who ran this? He looks at where they sit in the organisation, whether they're subordinate to the decision maker, and whether they had any prior contact with witnesses.
Independence has to be real and it has to look real. Perceived bias is just as damaging as actual bias.
His practical warning: get the hierarchy right from day one.
The investigator, the decision maker, and the appeal officer must each sit at increasing levels of seniority.
Get that wrong and you may hand him an easy win at tribunal.
2. Poor terms of reference are an open goal
Done well, terms of reference protect the process and keep scope creep in check. Done badly, Nathan described them as "pulling out foundational bricks."
Vague allegations, legal jargon that signals lawyer involvement, or scope that doesn't match the actual complaint all create vulnerabilities.
Every allegation must be specific. You cannot simply say "insubordination." You must say what happened, when, and how it breached what standard.
3. Untrained investigators are cross-examination fodder
Nathan has asked investigators in tribunal how many investigations they have done before. The answer has sometimes been zero.
Good people do not automatically make good investigators. Training is not optional, it is protection.
4. Contemporaneous notes save cases
Document your decisions as you make them. If you assessed a bias challenge and decided to proceed, write it down immediately.
Tribunals trust notes made at the time. They are far less persuaded by explanations offered months later.
5. Overlapping grievances are often tactical
When a grievance lands mid-disciplinary, ask yourself: does this actually affect the investigation, or is it a delay tactic?
Your response should be proportionate and evidenced.
6. Sickness does not stop the clock
You can and should continue progressing an investigation where someone is on sick leave.
The onus is on the employer to keep things moving. Occupational health referrals and reasonable adjustments are tools, not obstacles.
7. The AI grievance
The rise of AI-generated grievances was duly noted. There is nothing wrong in asking an individual to explain what they have set out and give examples.
If they can't explain it then that makes it difficult for an employee to pursue it.
Due to its popularity, Take 2 is on https://luma.com/uhgivmtb
Real issues. Real answers.