When an employee offers a different explanation for alleged misconduct, how far should an investigator go to test it? A 2025 Fair Work Commission Full Bench decision involving a forklift accident provides valuable guidance on assessing competing explanations, pursuing relevant evidence and making findings on the balance of probabilities.

If you already have detailed written complaints or signed witness statements, do you still need to interview the complainants? A 2025 Fair Work Commission decision highlights the risks of relying on written allegations without properly testing the evidence. We examine when interviews are necessary and what investigators should consider before making findings.

Engaging an external investigator doesn't automatically guarantee independence. A Fair Work Commission decision highlights the risks of employer involvement in investigation reports, inadequate evidence gathering and rushed investigations. We examine the practical lessons for HR managers and directors.

What does the Briginshaw principle mean for workplace investigators? This practical guide explains how to apply the balance of probabilities when investigating serious misconduct, assess conflicting evidence, consider corroboration and make defensible findings. It also examines guidance from a Full Bench industrial relations decision.

Can an evasive denial prove misconduct? Explore workplace investigation credibility, witness evidence and the FWC's guidance on dishonesty. Read the lessons.

A senior property manager was dismissed for serious misconduct after arranging to purchase a property through her employer. But her manager had approved the transaction. In [2026] FWC 3703, the Fair Work Commission examined whether the employer had established misconduct and whether the employee had received procedural fairness. The decision offers important lessons for workplace investigators and HR managers.

Two employers considered dismissing injured employees who could not perform their roles. Both had a valid reason. Their different approaches to giving the employees a chance to respond led to different unfair dismissal outcomes.

An employer’s concerns about the quality and safety of an employee’s work ended in an angry dismissal. The case shows why organisations must distinguish performance issues from misconduct, draft clear allegations and properly consider the employee’s response.

An employee’s admitted dishonesty gave the employer a valid reason for dismissal. The dismissal was still found unfair because the allegations were unclear, the evidence was overstated and the employee wasn’t given a proper opportunity to respond. This decision provides several practical lessons for employers conducting workplace investigations and disciplinary processes.

NDIS providers can face complex complaints involving worker conduct, participant safety, reportable incidents and regulatory obligations. This practical guide explains when a formal investigation may be required, how to structure the process, what evidence to gather and how to ensure procedural fairness.

Six women and girls made similar complaints over thirteen years. None were proven in court. NCAT still refused a Working with Children Check clearance. Here is how the Tribunal reasoned through a pattern of unproven allegations, and what it means for risk assessments.

A maintenance officer threw a punch at a bar 200 metres from the office, after the Christmas party had officially ended. The Fair Work Commission upheld his summary dismissal. The decision is a clean case study in out of hours conduct, missing CCTV, shifting accounts and the limits of a provocation argument.

An allegation letter overstated what the evidence actually proved, and blurred a genuine performance issue with an unproven misconduct claim. The result: an otherwise defensible dismissal found unfair.

An assault finding under the NSW Reportable Conduct Scheme isn't the end of the analysis. Here's how to tell whether it also meets the higher threshold of a serious physical assault, plus a checklist and reference table to work through it.

Poorly drafted allegations and a mislabelled reportable conduct classification cost the ACT Education Directorate on appeal. A case study in why the wording of allegations matters as much as the conduct itself.

A 22 year Woolworths employee was dismissed after repeated absences linked to his own illness and his son's addiction and mental health struggles. The Fair Work Commission's Full Bench upheld the dismissal for absenteeism. Here is what employers should take from the decision.

An employee dismissed after a failed Performance Improvement Plan took his case to the Fair Work Commission, then got caught using AI in his own submissions.

Section 57 of the Children's Guardian Act sets out exactly what children and parents must be told during a reportable conduct investigation, and when an organisation can hold information back. Here's what that looks like in practice.

A recent Fair Work Commission decision provides a useful example of how a dismissal can be procedurally fair and supported by a valid reason, yet still be found to be harsh.

Reportable conduct investigations rarely announce themselves. One day it's business as usual, the next you've got seven business days on the clock, a child's safety to think about, and an employee who deserves a fair process, all at once.