What Should an Employer Do in the First 24 Hours After Receiving a Workplace Complaint?
The first day should focus on stabilising the situation before deciding the response pathway.
When a workplace complaint arrives, leaders often feel pressure to act immediately.
That instinct is understandable. A complaint may raise concerns about bullying, inappropriate conduct, discrimination, interpersonal conflict, sexual harassment or psychological safety. The organisation may also be concerned about employee wellbeing, legal exposure, workplace disruption and reputational risk.
However, acting quickly is not the same as acting impulsively.
The decisions made in the first 24 hours can influence whether the matter remains manageable or develops into a prolonged dispute, stress-related absence, formal claim or broader team breakdown.
The immediate objective is not to determine who is right or wrong. It helps protect people, prevent unnecessary escalation, and maintain the conditions needed for a fair and effective response.
Why the first response matters
When I become involved in an established workplace matter, one of the first questions I ask is:
What happened in the hours immediately after the concern was raised?
The answers are often remarkably consistent. Someone spoke informally to the employee who was the subject of the complaint. A manager promised complete confidentiality. A leader tried to smooth the matter over before understanding what had occurred. I noticed several people were copied into emails unnecessarily. In other cases, nothing happened, and the silence was interpreted as indifference.
By the time external assistance is sought, these early decisions may already have affected trust, perceptions of fairness and the willingness of those involved to participate constructively.
Fair Work Ombudsman guidance recommends simple, fair, confidential and transparent dispute resolution procedures, with issues addressed quickly and effectively so they do not escalate. Read the Effective dispute resolution best practice guide.
A sound first response does not require the employer to have already selected the final process. It requires a calm acknowledgement, an assessment of immediate risk and clear communication about what will happen next.
Urgent situations: obtain specialist advice immediately
Stabilising the situation does not mean delaying urgent action. Immediate legal, work health and safety, human resources or other specialist advice may be required where the complaint involves:
· an immediate threat to physical or psychological health and safety, violence or aggression
· alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, victimisation, serious misconduct or possible criminal conduct
· a protected disclosure, whistleblower issue, mandatory reporting obligation or possible regulator notification
· a senior executive, business owner or person who would ordinarily control the internal response
· a credible risk of retaliation, repeated exposure, evidence destruction or significant organisational harm
Urgent advice may shape the immediate controls or reporting steps. It does not necessarily determine the final process for resolving the complaint.
Five actions that matter in the first 24 hours
1. Acknowledge the complaint and conduct an appropriate welfare check
The person who raised the concern should receive prompt acknowledgement. The initial contact should:
· confirm that the complaint has been received
· check whether there is an immediate risk to health or safety
· identify whether urgent support is required
· explain that the matter will be considered carefully
· advise when the employee can expect the next update
This is not the time to test the person’s account, challenge inconsistencies or conduct an informal interview. Avoid promising a particular outcome or guaranteeing absolute confidentiality, because some information may need to be shared to assess risk or provide procedural fairness.
A safer acknowledgement
“We will handle the matter sensitively and limit information to those who genuinely need it to assess and respond to the concern.”
The welfare check should provide reassurance without creating expectations the organisation may later be unable to meet.
2. Limit communication to those who genuinely need to know.
A complaint can generate anxiety among leaders. This sometimes leads to unnecessary internal discussion, excessive copying of emails or premature disclosure to other employees.
Before sharing information, ask:
· Who needs to know today?
· What information do they need?
· Why do they need it?
· What is the safest and most appropriate way to communicate it?
The list is usually shorter than it initially appears. Deliberate and proportionate communication helps protect privacy, preserve procedural fairness and reduce workplace speculation. It should not be used to isolate either party or prevent them from accessing appropriate support.
3. Preserve relevant information through proper channels.
Relevant documents and records may need to be secured early, particularly where information could be deleted, altered or lost. Depending on the matter, this may include:
· emails and workplace messages
· incident reports, rosters and attendance records
· relevant policies and previous correspondence
· CCTV, access records or system logs, where applicable
· existing performance, supervision or support records
Information should be preserved systematically. Record what was secured, who collected it, where it is stored and when it was obtained.
Employees should not ordinarily be encouraged to circulate screenshots, forward confidential communications widely or collect statements from colleagues. These actions may create privacy concerns, contaminate later evidence and fuel workplace speculation.
Preserving information is not the same as beginning an investigation. The objective is to keep relevant material available while the organisation determines the appropriate pathway.
4. Triage the risk and determine the appropriate pathway.
Not every workplace complaint requires the same response. Before taking substantive action, clarify the nature of the concern, the immediate risk profile and any legal or procedural obligations.
Relevant questions include:
· Is anyone at immediate risk of psychological or physical harm?
· Does the allegation involve possible serious misconduct, sexual harassment, discrimination, victimisation or criminal conduct?
· Is the central issue interpersonal conflict, a communication breakdown, conduct, a systems problem or a combination of these?
· Is there an established pattern or a single event?
· Could workload, role ambiguity, poor support, organisational change or other work-design factors be contributing?
· Which complaint, misconduct, whistleblower, grievance or work health and safety procedures apply?
· Does the organisation require legal, HR, WHS or specialist conflict advice before deciding the next step?
Workplace conflict and poor workplace relationships may also operate as psychosocial hazards. In Queensland, the Managing the risk of psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice 2022 provides practical guidance on identifying hazards, assessing risk, implementing controls and reviewing their effectiveness. Organisations operating elsewhere should check the laws and regulator guidance applying in their jurisdiction.
Possible pathways may include:
· management clarification or corrective action
· conflict coaching
· a facilitated conversation
· workplace mediation
· a psychosocial risk assessment and controls
· formal grievance or misconduct management
· a preliminary assessment
· a formal workplace investigation
· legal or specialist employment advice
An investigation is one possible pathway. It should not be treated as the automatic response to every concern. Selecting the wrong process too early can intensify the dispute and reduce the options available later.
5. Introduce proportionate interim controls where ongoing risk exists.
Where there is a credible risk of ongoing harm, temporary controls may be required while the matter is assessed. Depending on the circumstances, interim arrangements could include:
· changing how the parties communicate
· temporarily adjusting reporting arrangements, duties, work locations or rosters
· altering meeting attendance or nominating a manager through whom contact will occur
· arranging additional supervision, check-ins or support
· temporarily limiting access to particular systems, locations or information
Interim controls are not disciplinary findings and should not be implemented or described as punishment. They are temporary measures intended to reduce exposure to risk while a fair process is established.
Controls should be proportionate to the identified risk, reviewed regularly and adjusted as circumstances change. Where reasonably practicable, affected workers should be consulted about measures intended to manage psychosocial risks.
Care is required to ensure that the person who raised the concern is not disadvantaged merely because they spoke up. Equal care is required to avoid treating the person who is the subject of the complaint as though the allegations have already been substantiated.
What not to do in the first 24 hours
Several well-intentioned responses can make a difficult matter significantly harder to resolve.
Do not begin unstructured fact-finding before the pathway is assessed
Avoid approaching multiple witnesses, asking colleagues what they have heard or confronting the person who is the subject of the complaint before the process has been considered. Unstructured enquiries can alert people before evidence is secured, generate competing narratives, compromise later interviews, create perceptions of bias and increase gossip.
Limited preliminary enquiries may sometimes be necessary to clarify the allegation, assess an immediate risk, preserve material or determine whether urgent reporting obligations apply. Any such enquiry should be narrow, documented and undertaken by an appropriate person. It should not drift into an informal investigation without a defined scope or fair process.
Do not promise complete confidentiality.
Confidentiality should be managed carefully, but it cannot always be absolute. The organisation may need to disclose sufficient information to assess the allegation, manage risk and provide the respondent with a fair opportunity to understand and answer the material concerns. Explain the limits of confidentiality clearly and early.
Do not send a broad workplace communication.
An all-staff email is rarely appropriate during the initial response. General communications can provoke speculation, indirectly identify those involved and create reputational harm before the matter has been assessed.
Do not promise an investigation immediately.
Announcing an investigation may appear to demonstrate seriousness. Still, the organisation should first determine whether an investigation is required, what allegations would be examined, who should conduct it and whether another process would be safer or more proportionate.
Do not attempt to mediate serious allegations prematurely
Mediation and facilitated discussion can be highly effective, but they are not suitable for every matter or every stage. Serious misconduct, significant safety concerns, substantial power imbalance or allegations requiring factual findings may need to be assessed before a relational process is considered.
Do not leave the parties without information.
Silence creates uncertainty. Even where the organisation is still deciding the appropriate pathway, those involved should be told that the concern has been received, that immediate risks are being considered, when they will next be contacted, who they should speak with in the meantime and what support is available.
The first 24 hours are about preserving options.
The first day after receiving a workplace complaint is not about resolving the entire matter. It is about preserving the organisation’s ability to respond safely and fairly.
A measured first response protects welfare, reduces immediate risk, limits unnecessary communication, preserves relevant information, avoids premature findings and clarifies the next decision point.
When leaders stabilise the situation before selecting a pathway, they retain a meaningful range of options. Those options may include management intervention, facilitated discussion, mediation, psychosocial risk controls, a formal process or a combination of responses.
The aim is not to delay action. It is to ensure that the first action does not make the problem harder to solve.
When independent assistance may be useful
Independent advice can be particularly valuable where:
· the complaint involves a senior leader or the organisation has limited internal HR capacity
· the allegations and relational issues overlap
· there is uncertainty about whether to investigate or use another process
· psychological health concerns or psychosocial hazards have been raised
· trust in the internal process is already low
· previous attempts to address the situation have failed
· the workplace is becoming divided, or the matter is affecting a wider team
Unsure what should happen next?
A workplace complaint does not automatically require mediation or an investigation. The appropriate response depends on the allegations, immediate risks, workplace context and the needs of those involved.
Resolution House Consulting provides independent complaint triage, workplace conflict resolution, mediation, and psychosocial risk support for small and medium organisations across South East Queensland and online Australia-wide.
Book a confidential 30-minute triage call: www.resolutionhouseconsulting.com.au
About the author
Sue Batten is the Principal Consultant of Resolution House Consulting, an independent workplace conflict resolution and psychosocial risk consultancy based in Brisbane. Sue supports organisations across the full workplace conflict cycle, including early concerns, active conflict, formal complaints, mediation, facilitated conversations, complaint triage, team repair and post-investigation recovery.
Official guidance and further reading
· Fair Work Ombudsman: Effective dispute resolution best practice guide
· Safe Work Australia: Model Code of Practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work
· Australian Human Rights Commission: The positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act
General information only: This article does not constitute legal advice. Obligations and appropriate responses depend on the facts, applicable policies, industrial instruments and the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.
