The Investigation Was Fair. The Findings Letter Wasn't.

When Cohealth Limited engaged an independent barrister to investigate a complaint against one of its employees, it did almost everything right. The investigator was experienced and impartial, tested the evidence from both sides, and ultimately substantiated only one of seven allegations put to the employee. On paper, it was a textbook example of a fair workplace investigation. Yet the Fair Work Commission still found the process breached procedural fairness, not because of anything the investigator did, but because of what the organisation did with the findings afterwards.

For anyone who runs, commissions, or relies on workplace investigations, the decision in Crafti v Cohealth Limited [2026] FWC 2629 is worth understanding closely. It is a reminder that procedural fairness in a workplace investigation does not end when the investigator submits a report. It extends to every step that follows.

What Happened in Crafti v Cohealth Limited

A Community Development Worker with just over six years' service at Cohealth, a not-for-profit community health provider, was accused of mishandling an interaction with a vulnerable client at one of its drop-in health services. Rather than run the investigation internally, Cohealth briefed an independent barrister to look into the complaint from scratch.

The barrister interviewed witnesses, tested the evidence on both sides, and delivered a measured, carefully reasoned outcome: of seven allegations, only one was found to breach the Code of Conduct. When the Fair Work Commission later reviewed that investigation, it found nothing wrong with it. In the Deputy President's words, it was "a fair investigative process."

The trouble started after the investigation ended. When Cohealth wrote to the employee with the outcome, the findings letter said allegations were "breaches of the Code of Conduct" that the investigator had explicitly found were not breaches. Cohealth also decided the sanction, a written warning plus a Performance Improvement Plan, before giving the employee any chance to respond to what the investigator had actually found. When he lodged an internal appeal, it was decided before his follow-up submission had even been read.

The employee later refused to complete the Performance Improvement Plan, calling it a "farce," and was dismissed for that refusal. He lost both his internal dispute claim and his unfair dismissal application. The Commission found real breaches of procedural fairness in how the disciplinary outcome was handled, but ultimately ruled the dismissal itself was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable, because by the time he was dismissed, the reason had shifted: he was let go for refusing to engage with the Performance Improvement Plan, not for the tainted investigation outcome itself.

Why a Fair Investigation Still Breached Procedural Fairness

Procedural fairness, sometimes called natural justice, has two core requirements in the employment context: an employee must be told, in enough detail, what is being alleged against them, and they must be given a genuine opportunity to respond before any decision affecting them is made. Most employers understand this applies to the investigation itself. What this case makes clear is that it applies just as strongly to everything that happens after the investigation.

Cohealth's process broke down in three separate places, none of which had anything to do with the investigator's work. First, Cohealth decided the disciplinary sanction before the employee had any opportunity to respond to the actual findings. Second, the outcome letter misstated what had been substantiated, describing findings as Code of Conduct breaches when the investigator had explicitly found otherwise. Third, the internal appeal was decided before the employee's supporting submission had even been considered.

Each of these was, on its own, enough for the Commission to find a breach of procedural fairness. Together, they show how easily a well-run investigation can be undermined by the administrative steps that follow it.

Lessons for Employers and Investigators

Separate Fact-Finding from the Sanction Decision

Even where an investigation is independent and rigorous, give the employee a distinct opportunity to respond to the proposed sanction, not just to the original allegations, before that sanction is decided. These are two different decisions, and procedural fairness applies to both.

Report Findings Exactly as They Were Made

If an investigator substantiates one allegation out of seven, the outcome letter needs to say so precisely. Rolling multiple findings into a single, sweeping statement that something was a "breach of the Code of Conduct," when the investigator found otherwise, is treated as its own procedural fairness breach, regardless of how sound the underlying investigation was.

Make Internal Appeals Genuine

An appeal that is effectively decided before the employee's submission is read is not a genuine appeal. It is a formality, and the Fair Work Commission will describe it as exactly that if the matter reaches a hearing.

A Tainted Process Does Not Automatically Poison a Later Decision

Where a genuinely separate and later failure, in this case refusing a reasonable management direction, gives an employer an independent, valid reason for dismissal, earlier procedural fairness breaches will not necessarily save an unfair dismissal claim. They are not irrelevant, and they can still weigh in the employee's favour, but they do not automatically make a later dismissal unfair.

The Bigger Picture: An Investigation Is Only Step One

The one part of Cohealth's process that survived scrutiny intact was the decision to bring in an independent, external investigator rather than run the process internally. For organisations handling complex, contested, or high-stakes misconduct allegations, that structural choice is worth replicating — see our workplace investigation services for how we approach this.

But Crafti v Cohealth Limited is also a caution against treating a fair investigation as the finish line. The investigation is only ever the first stage. What an organisation does with the findings, how it reports them, how it decides the sanction, and how it handles any appeal, needs just as much rigour as the investigation itself.