GSA Global provides independent workplace investigation services for organisations requiring impartial fact-finding into misconduct, bullying, harassment, grievances, whistleblowing concerns and other sensitive workplace matters.
External investigation is often appropriate where allegations involve senior personnel, internal teams are themselves involved in the matter, impartiality may reasonably be questioned or the organisation does not have the capacity or experience to conduct the investigation internally. It can also provide additional assurance where the process and findings are likely to be subject to significant scrutiny.
We establish and report the relevant facts through a structured and impartial investigation, working alongside the organisation’s HR and employment-law advisers where required. GSA does not determine disciplinary, grievance or other employment outcomes; our role is to provide the organisation’s decision-makers with a clear assessment of the evidence against the agreed terms of reference.
Most workplace matters are handled well internally. External investigation earns its cost in a narrower set of situations:
Each investigation is structured to be fair to all parties and clear to the decision-makers who receive it. We agree written terms of reference, the allegations to be examined, reporting lines and what falls outside scope before substantive work begins. No one is treated as culpable because an allegation has been made; those facing allegations are given a proper opportunity to respond to the evidence. Relevant documents, records and, where properly available to the employer, system data are identified and reviewed, with advice on preservation where digital evidence is involved. Interviews are planned, structured and recorded in the manner agreed with the organisation and its advisers. Accounts are tested against each other and against the documentary record, and findings are reported against the agreed terms of reference using the approach agreed with the organisation and its advisers, with limitations stated where the evidence does not allow a finding either way.
A typical workplace investigation delivers: agreed terms of reference; an investigation plan; interview records in the agreed form; an evidence schedule where the volume of material justifies one; a chronology of relevant events; findings against each allegation with the supporting evidence identified; a statement of evidential limitations; and a clear investigation report written for the designated decision-makers and their advisers.
Workplace matters are staffed to match the seniority and sensitivity of the matter, with senior oversight. David Wood can provide senior oversight of the most sensitive matters, drawing on experience that includes six years as operational deputy to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, an organisation dedicated to the independent investigation of conduct allegations. Dr Brian Moore QPM contributes where whistleblowing or wider organisational risk is material. Where allegations involve integrity or corruption concerns, Bob Quick QPM’s anti-corruption experience is relevant; where questions arise about an individual’s background or declared history, Michael Handley’s background-investigation expertise can be drawn on.
Policing and public-sector investigative experience is not employment-law expertise, and we do not present it as such: our role is to establish facts, and your employment-law and HR advisers advise on process and consequences.
Misconduct investigations cover breaches of policy and standards: inappropriate conduct towards colleagues, dishonesty, misuse of company resources or systems, breaches of confidentiality, undeclared conflicts of interest and failures to follow required procedures. The investigative task is to establish what actually happened, so that the employer’s decision-makers can apply their policies to a reliable set of facts.
These are among the most sensitive matters we investigate. The same events are often genuinely perceived differently by the people involved, the conduct may span months or years, and much of the evidence is testimonial. A competent investigation looks at context and pattern as well as individual incidents: contemporaneous records, what witnesses actually saw, and whether accounts are consistent over time. We conduct these interviews with care, complainants describing distressing experiences and respondents facing serious allegations both deserve a professional, humane process.
In disciplinary and grievance processes, the investigation and the decision should be kept separate — and an external investigator makes that separation visible. We conduct the fact-finding stage; we do not chair hearings, decide sanctions or determine grievance outcomes. Those remain management decisions, taken with the organisation’s own HR and employment-law advice, including advice on how the Acas Code of Practice applies to the process.
Whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding concerns need particularly careful handling: a whistleblower’s identity may need protection, information must be restricted to those who genuinely need it, and mishandling the early stages can compromise both the investigation and the people it concerns. Dr Brian Moore QPM, whose experience includes whistleblowing and organisational-risk matters at senior level, can provide oversight on these assignments. GSA does not replace statutory safeguarding bodies; where a matter must be referred to police, local-authority safeguarding teams or a regulator, we support the organisation in doing that properly.
If your organisation is managing a workplace allegation or requires independent investigative support, contact our team for a confidential discussion.
When impartiality could reasonably be questioned, when the allegation concerns a senior person, when the matter is serious enough that the process will be scrutinised, or when internal capacity or experience is insufficient.
Your organisation does. We establish and report the facts; decisions on disciplinary action, grievance outcomes or other consequences are management decisions taken with your own HR and legal advice.
Yes. Many workplace investigations are coordinated with employment lawyers, particularly where potential proceedings are in prospect.
Usually, yes. Interviews are planned, structured and recorded in the form agreed with the organisation, and those facing allegations are given a fair opportunity to respond to the evidence.
We advise on preserving it correctly at the outset. Where technical examination is needed, GSA can scope and coordinate that work, involving appropriately appointed digital-forensic specialists where formal forensic acquisition is required.
It depends on the number of allegations, interviewees and volume of evidence. We give a realistic estimate at scoping and report progress against it.
Information is restricted to the assigned team and the named individuals in the terms of reference. We are honest about limits: findings may need to be disclosed in subsequent legal proceedings, and we explain that at the outset.