KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- Workplace bullying is responsible for 33 per cent of Australia’s 16,800 annual mental stress workers’ compensation claims, and legal remedies for affected workers are expanding.
- Bullying requires repeated unreasonable behaviour creating a real risk to health and safety – a single incident or reasonable management action will not meet the threshold.
- Each allegation must capture a specific behaviour or act, drafted in neutral and factual terms, free of emotive language and legal conclusions.
- Bullying complaints frequently arrive mislabelled – scoping the investigation to the conduct described, not the legal label applied, is an important threshold decision for an investigator.
- Apply the balance of probabilities, assess the reliability of evidence carefully, and prioritise corroborating evidence.
The scale of the problem
Bullying continues to be a serious, persistent and costly workplace issue, both locally and globally.
A landmark 2026 report by the International Labour Organization estimates that psychosocial risk factors at work – including workplace harassment, excessive working hours and job insecurity – are responsible for more than 840,000 deaths annually through associated cardiovascular disease and mental illness.
According to Safe Work Australia, workplace bullying accounts for 33 per cent of the 16,800 serious mental stress workers’ compensation claims lodged annually. These claims result in financial compensation and time off work up to five times higher than the median serious claim.
Given the serious health impacts, it is not surprising that legal remedies for bullied workers are expanding. In October 2025, NSW public sector and local government workers gained access to stop bullying orders through the NSW Industrial Relations Commission for the first time, adding to the existing federal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009.
Within our national practice, we have observed a sustained high volume of bullying investigations over the past decade. Currently, approximately 50 per cent of our investigations relate to allegations of bullying.
Investigating bullying complaints fairly, thoroughly and sensitively is critical – not only for the individuals directly involved, but also for the organisations responsible for their safety.
Defining workplace bullying
Under the Fair Work Act 2009, bullying occurs when an individual or group repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards a worker, creating a real risk to health and safety.
All three elements must be present: unreasonable behaviour, repetition, and risk. The test for unreasonableness is objective – that is, what a reasonable person would consider to be unreasonable in the circumstances.
Common examples of bullying include aggressive or intimidating conduct, humiliation or verbal abuse, deliberate exclusion, spreading rumours, and unreasonable work demands. This is not an exhaustive list.
Reasonable management action is not bullying
Critically, reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner is not bullying. Performance appraisals, disciplinary processes and work reallocation are all legitimate management functions, even where an employee disagrees with them. The question is whether the action lacked ‘evident and intelligible justification’ or was carried out unreasonably.
If carried out unreasonably, for example, aggressively, publicly or disproportionately, the same conduct can cross into bullying. This is a nuanced, fact-specific assessment that investigators must address directly in their findings.
THE GUIDE
1. Getting the scope right
Bullying complaints frequently arrive with a legal label already attached. Employees reach for familiar vocabulary, ‘harassment,’ ‘hostile work environment,’ ‘victimisation’. Workplaces have trained employees in this language, and employees are increasingly assisted by AI drafting tools. However, accepting the label of the alleged conduct at face value and scoping the investigation around it is a significant risk.
A complaint labelled ‘bullying’ may, on closer examination, describe a deteriorating interpersonal relationship, a manager who has become punitive in response to pushback, or a culture of exclusion that does not map neatly onto the legal definition.
The reverse is also true. Some complaints that arrive labelled as ‘harassment’, ‘discrimination’ or ‘unfair treatment’ may, on closer examination, describe a pattern of conduct that meets the bullying threshold.
Investigators need to keep an open mind when scoping the investigation.
Practical guidance on scoping.
- Scope an investigation based on the described conduct, not the legal category. ‘Investigate the conduct described in the complaint dated [X]’ gives flexibility. ‘Investigate bullying’ can risk closing the scope before the facts are known.
- The complainant’s original complaint is evidence of how they experienced the situation. But do not let it determine the legal frame of the investigation at the initial stage.
- Where the conduct described does not meet the legal threshold for bullying, but is still significant, identify where it does belong. This may be a management coaching conversation, an EAP referral, a policy review, or a different investigation pathway. What is important is a conversation with the complainant about where the complaint does belong and what steps will be taken.
2. Interviewing complainants and witnesses: Getting the particulars
The quality of interviews is central to any bullying investigation. In bullying matters, the gap between a complainant’s genuine experience and what can be established as a specific, provable incident is often wide.
Start open, then narrow
Let complainants tell their story in their own words before drilling down for specifics. Open questions such as ‘Can you walk me through what happened, in your own words?’ serve two purposes: they get the person speaking in their own voice, and they strip out the legal vocabulary that often comes from policy training or AI drafting rather than lived experience.
The same strategy of ‘start open, then narrow’ is best practice for witness interviews as well.
3. Drafting precise allegations
Poor allegations produce poor investigations. Once the scope and complainant evidence is clear, convert the complaint into precise allegations using these principles:
- Split up the particulars. Each discrete incident or behaviour should be its own allegation or sub-allegation. Avoid bundling multiple incidents into one broad allegation. Investigators need to be able to make a clear finding on each factual incident.
- Emotive language. Remove words like ‘bullied,’ ‘victimised’ or ‘deliberately humiliated.’ Describe the conduct in neutral, factual terms. Whether it constitutes bullying is the investigator’s role to conclude after assessing the evidence and making factual findings.
- Include the specifics. Each allegation should, where possible, identify the approximate date or period, the conduct or words used, the location, and who was present. Vague allegations such as ‘he always spoke to me disrespectfully’ are difficult to investigate and difficult to put fairly to a respondent.
A well-drafted allegation gives the respondent a genuine opportunity to respond and gives the investigator a clear framework to make well-reasoned findings of fact.
4. Interviewing respondents
Respondents may provide limited or unclear answers. The following techniques can assist investigators in obtaining more complete and precise information:
- Recap and confirm. After a complex or unclear answer, summarise what you understood and ask the respondent to confirm: ‘So you’re saying you raised your voice because the room was noisy, not out of frustration – is that right?’ This confirms you understand their evidence and prevents later disputes about what was said.
- Reframe rather than repeat. If a question isn’t working, approach it differently. Instead of ‘Did you intend to exclude her?’ try ‘Who decided who would be invited to that meeting?’ or ‘Was she usually included in meetings of this type?’
- Closed questions may be necessary to confirm response. In bullying matters, specific words, tone and context are critical. Direct questions are often necessary: Did you raise your voice?’ ‘Were you alone with her at that point?’ ‘Did you say those words?’
- Test inconsistencies directly. Where the respondent’s account differs from the complainant’s or from documentary evidence, put it to them: ‘The complainant says this happened in the open-plan office. You’ve said it was a private conversation. Can you help me understand that difference?’
- Probe ‘I don’t recall’. Don’t let ‘I don’t recall’ responses go unchallenged. Try: ‘Is it possible it happened and you just don’t remember the detail?’ or ‘What do you recall about that day generally?’ Our article – Recall Roadblocks: How to Handle ‘I Don’t Recall’ Responses in Investigations – provides further strategies on how to deal with this common interview challenge.
Throughout all interviews, maintain strict neutrality in tone, language and body language.
5. Making sound findings
Findings must be grounded in objective evidence, not an employee’s subjective experience. Assess participant credibility carefully, prioritise corroborating documentary evidence, and avoid material of low probative value. The more serious the allegation, the greater the quality of evidence required. Where evidence is genuinely inconclusive, the correct finding is ‘not substantiated.’
Where the terms of reference of an investigation require it, an investigator may also assess whether substantiated conduct breaches applicable workplace policies. This is a separate and distinct step from the fact-finding exercise. Investigators must apply the specific language of the relevant policy, not default to the regulatory definition of serious misconduct.
Determining what disciplinary action, if any, is appropriate is a distinct process that belongs to the decision-maker.
This Fair Work Commission Full Bench decision provides important learnings for investigators and employers on whether bullying complaints amount to “serious misconduct” and what sanctions will be considered fair and proportionate: Case review | Bullying not always ‘serious misconduct’ – Q Workplace Solutions.
Bullying investigations: Tips and traps for investigators
- An individual’s perception does not always reflect the objective facts. Complainants may genuinely experience their concerns as bullying. The investigator’s role is to assess the matter against an objective standard, considering all available evidence
- Look at the pattern, not just the incidents. Minor behaviours that seem insignificant in isolation can constitute bullying when viewed as a cumulative pattern over time. Conversely, a single serious incident, however distressing, does not meet the legal threshold of bullying.
- Bullying complaints made during performance management don’t cancel the management process. A complaint lodged mid-process must be taken seriously and investigated promptly, but it does not automatically pause legitimate management action. The two processes can, and often must, run in parallel, with appropriate care taken to ensure the management action is demonstrably reasonable and well-documented throughout.
- The investigation process can itself become a problem. An investigation conducted unfairly, insensitively or without proper procedural safeguards can itself become a psychosocial hazard or constitute bullying. Investigators should document their procedural decisions carefully and be prepared to justify them.
- Don’t let ‘I don’t recall’ close the door on a line of inquiry. Uncertainty and hedged language are normal features of repeated-event recall. An investigator who treats every ‘I’m not sure’ or ‘I think it was around then’ as a credibility problem will systematically undervalue the accounts of genuine bullying complainants. Probe carefully, but probe with an understanding of why uncertainty arises.
- Corroboration strengthens evidence but its absence is not decisive. Bullying often occurs without witnesses. Emails, messages, calendar records, performance documentation and records of leave can all provide important corroborating context, even where no one directly witnessed the conduct. Absence of corroboration does not mean the conduct did not occur, but it does affect the weight that can be placed on uncorroborated accounts.
- Support participants throughout. All participants in an investigation face psychosocial hazards during investigations. Bullying investigations can be prolonged and stressful. Investigators and employers should ensure EAP access is actively offered and not merely mentioned in passing, consider temporary work arrangements to minimise contact between the parties, and monitor the wellbeing of participants throughout the process. Employers have a positive obligation to provide adequate support during investigations. A check-in call with participants, particularly complainants and respondents can make a significant difference.
- Document your process as carefully as your findings. In bullying investigations, the procedural fairness of the process is as important as the substantive findings. Keep detailed records of how allegations were drafted, how participants were notified, what opportunities were given to respond, and if necessary, how credibility was assessed.
More information
Q Workplace Solutions’ team of experienced and legally qualified investigators is trusted by public and private organisations, including ASX-listed companies and government agencies, to investigate complex and often highly sensitive allegations of employee wrongdoing. The team also undertakes reviews of organisations, divisions, or units, and provides training, coaching and external advisory support to internal investigators and teams. Our expert team has documented best practice investigation approaches and processes, including how to approach bullying investigations, in the industry-recognised expert guide, Workplace Investigations: Principles and Practice (2nd Edition).
Upcoming training | 18 June 2026
In this practical three-hour online investigations training workshop – Bullying Allegations: Conducting a Mock Investigation – participants will conduct a ‘speed investigation’ from start to finish, that will address many of the common and complex challenges involved in these types of workplace investigations. Group bookings are available.
