FKINP Compare providers by allegation fit, independence needs and required report, then choose preliminary fact-finding, support for an internal investigator or an end-to-end external investigation.[3][5]
Choose the investigation model
- Preliminary enquiry or fact-finding: for deciding whether the available information warrants a formal investigation.[3]
- Supported internal investigation: for organisations that need external capability, structure or guidance while conducting the investigation internally.[3]
- End-to-end external investigation: for matters involving senior leaders, possible conflicts, insufficient internal objectivity, skills or capacity, or high legal and reputational risk.[5]
Paula Sutherland & Associates says an investigation is generally required where proven concerns could warrant disciplinary action, and notes there is no legal requirement to use an independent investigator; both points are the firm’s own commentary.[6] The statutory test that matters if a dismissal follows is section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009: in an unfair dismissal claim, the Fair Work Commission must consider whether there was a valid reason, whether the employee was notified of it and given an opportunity to respond, whether a support person was unreasonably refused and whether earlier warnings were given about unsatisfactory performance, along with the size of the business and whether it had dedicated human resources expertise.[7] These are considerations in the relevant unfair-dismissal assessment, not a universal checklist of statutory requirements for every workplace complaint investigation. Where dismissal is contemplated, obtain matter-specific employment advice and retain evidence of the relevant process.[7]
Compare providers by allegation, independence and report scope
LKA Group through WISE Workplace
Allegation fit: LKA lists misuse of authority or social media, serious or official misconduct, bullying, harassment, discrimination, conflicts of interest and inappropriate use of IT resources.[1]
Independence or conflict needs: LKA describes an Australia-wide team of investigators, lawyers, HR professionals and mediators, with workplace services supplied through its subsidiary WISE Workplace, which is profiled separately below. Treat LKA and WISE as one provider group when shortlisting, and confirm which entity will contract and investigate. LKA’s page does not confirm how investigator conflicts are identified or managed.[1]
Report scope: LKA does not specify standard report contents. WISE says its detailed reports may include facts, findings and recommendations for systemic improvement, so confirm which entity will conduct the work and what its report will contain.[1][3]
Worklogic
Allegation fit: Worklogic investigates bullying, harassment, discrimination, fraud and unethical behaviour. It presents the service for formal complaints and complex or emotionally charged matters.[2]
Independence or conflict needs: Worklogic targets employers without suitably experienced or available internal investigators and those seeking to reduce perceived internal bias. It also works with law firms on client investigations conducted under legal professional privilege, but does not publish its conflict-screening method.[2]
Report scope: Reports can include factual findings, collected evidence and, if instructed, comments on apparent policy breaches. Post-investigation support recommendations are optional.[2]
WISE Workplace
Allegation fit: WISE covers workplace and sector misconduct, Reportable Conduct, child abuse and grooming, CIMS matters, procurement breaches, fraud and corruption, bullying, harassment, discrimination, conflicts and digital or social-media issues.[3]
Independence or conflict needs: WISE offers end-to-end investigations, preliminary fact-finding, support for internal investigators and manager guidance. It says each investigation receives internal oversight, but its page does not publish a conflict-screening process.[3]
Report scope: Reports may include facts, findings and recommendations for systemic improvement.[3]
Mapien
Allegation fit: Mapien handles informal complaints, complex allegations, workplace conflicts, grievances and disputes, including matters that may escalate to WorkCover claims or Fair Work Commission proceedings.[4]
Independence or conflict needs: Mapien describes a national investigation team. In Western Australia, investigation services are delivered through associated legal practice Mapien Law. Its page does not confirm how proposed investigators are screened for conflicts.[4]
Report scope: Its published process covers evidence evaluation, a findings report, party feedback and an action plan, with implementation or compliance support available.[4]
HumanX HR
Allegation fit: HumanX covers senior-leadership complaints, bullying, harassment, discrimination, fraud, theft, safety incidents, confidentiality breaches and other policy misconduct.[5]
Independence or conflict needs: HumanX positions external engagement for senior-level allegations, possible conflicts and cases where internal objectivity, capability or capacity is insufficient. It does not disclose a formal investigator conflict-checking protocol.[5]
Report scope: Its service includes evidence and communications review, interviews, compliance assessment, findings and written reports. Standard report contents are not detailed.[5]
Paula Sutherland & Associates
Allegation fit: This service covers misconduct, harassment, discrimination, conflict resolution and factual investigations, including allegations that could lead to disciplinary action if substantiated.[6]
Independence or conflict needs: It is a lawyer-led, Hobart-based service whose published approach addresses the bias and hearing rules, credibility and procedural fairness. Its page does not confirm a separate investigator conflict-screening protocol.[6]
Report scope: The firm describes reports identifying the material relied upon. It says allegations are assessed with reference to the Briginshaw standard and available findings are expressed on the balance of probabilities.[6]
These are published service offerings, not a quality ranking. The sources are vendor pages, their publication dates are not verified, and their claims about impartiality, outcomes and organisational benefits are not independently substantiated.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Specify the required report
Set each required output in the engagement scope:
- Findings: specify whether the report must contain general findings of fact and a finding for each allegation. Worklogic and WISE publish these outputs; HumanX confirms findings and written reports without detailing standard contents.[2][3][5]
- Policy analysis and evidence: Worklogic offers optional comments on apparent policy breaches and attaches collected evidence.[2] Paula Sutherland & Associates describes reports identifying relied-upon material, which does not confirm that a complete evidence bundle is provided.[6]
- Recommendations and action planning: Worklogic may recommend post-investigation support, WISE may recommend systemic improvements, and Mapien describes party feedback, an action plan and possible implementation or compliance support.[2][3][4]
Ask who will make disciplinary or management decisions because the sources do not establish a common provider practice.[2][3][4][5][6] Before comparing quotes, request a sample report structure or written deliverables schedule and confirm whether recommendations, evidence schedules, policy analysis and action planning are included.
Agree confidentiality and evidence handling before collection
Proposed engagement checklist. Treat these as matters to agree with the investigator and qualified advisers, not as a claim that every provider uses the same process or that this list states all applicable law.
- Allegations and boundaries — Written agreement to obtain: List the issues to investigate, exclusions and who may authorize a scope change. Keep management decisions separate from factual findings.
- Evidence collection — Written agreement to obtain: Identify authorized document sources, interview arrangements and who may request additional material. Record source, receipt date and any access or authenticity limitation.
- Storage and custody — Written agreement to obtain: Specify approved storage locations, access controls, secure transfer method, named custodian and handling of originals and working copies.
- Confidentiality — Written agreement to obtain: Define who can receive allegations, witness material and the report, what disclosures may be required, and how parties are informed. Do not promise absolute secrecy.
- Retention and deletion — Written agreement to obtain: Agree a period or review process, legal-hold responsibility, return/export arrangements and how deletion or continued retention will be documented.
- Report and handover — Written agreement to obtain: Require allegation-by-allegation findings, evidence relied upon, unresolved contradictions and limitations; specify whether a redacted version or evidence schedule is included.
Consider a fictional complaint involving a manager and several witnesses. Before appointment, require conflict clearance for the named investigator, an agreed allegation list, a response process and a recipient list. If the scope expands, record who authorized the additional interviews and cost. On handover, confirm which findings the employer must assess and who retains the underlying evidence. This is an example procurement workflow, not a completed investigation.
Check geographic and interview delivery
LKA describes an Australia-wide team.[1] Worklogic offers in-person or video-conference investigations and says it works with law firms across Australia.[2] Mapien lists offices in Brisbane, Perth, Sydney, Melbourne and Geelong; its Western Australian investigations are delivered through Mapien Law.[4] Mapien interviews may be conducted in person, by telephone or through Microsoft Teams, with a support person permitted if that person is not involved in the investigation.[4]
Paula Sutherland & Associates is Hobart-based and markets its service to Tasmania.[6] HumanX refers to Australian organisations, but its page does not confirm office locations, travel coverage or remote delivery.[5] Confirm regional availability, travel costs, accessibility, interpreters and remote-interview arrangements directly.
Pricing and turnaround require direct quotes
The reviewed pages do not establish comparable fixed prices, hourly rates, minimum engagements, disbursements, GST treatment, payment schedules, cancellation terms or firm service deadlines.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Worklogic directs prospective clients to request a quote but gives no amount or calculation method.[2] Mapien describes an initial consultation followed by a quote covering scope, objectives, estimated timelines and a detailed cost estimate, but publishes no dollar rates or fee components.[4]
For a like-for-like comparison, ask each provider to state whether its quote includes:
- investigator and reviewer time;
- travel and other disbursements;
- the assumed evidence volume and number of witnesses;
- additional interviews and report revisions;
- legal input, if required;
- GST and the payment schedule; and
- cancellation, postponement and variation terms.
Obtain written start and completion estimates. The provider pages do not give firm turnaround commitments.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Test independence and method before appointment
Ask for the proposed investigator’s name, disclosure of actual or perceived conflicts involving the parties and decision-makers, and details of who will supervise or review the work. The sources do not establish a consistent conflict-checking framework or independently confirm investigator credentials, insurance, disciplinary history or performance.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
- Investigation method: request a written process covering scope, allegations, interviews, documentary and digital evidence, contradictions, party responses, analysis and findings. Worklogic publishes a process containing these stages.[2]
- Procedural fairness: ask how the provider will address the hearing and bias rules, credibility and proof standards, and how its process supports the applicable response opportunities and, where relevant, evidence for a section 387 assessment if dismissal follows. Paula Sutherland & Associates discusses these matters, but the source is the provider’s own legal commentary.[6][7]
- Legal professional privilege: obtain matter-specific legal advice rather than assuming an external appointment attracts privilege. Worklogic states that it works with law firms on investigations conducted for clients under privilege.[2]
Build the brief and shortlist
Prepare one brief for every shortlisted provider covering:
- the complaint, parties, seniority, reporting lines and known conflicts;
- work locations, relevant policies and available evidence;
- regulatory or child-safety dimensions;
- the required engagement model; and
- the decision the final report must support.
Request written confirmation of the assigned investigator, conflict clearance, methodology, report contents, review process, estimated timing, fee assumptions, variation process and cancellation terms. Shortlist by allegation fit, exclude providers that cannot resolve independence concerns, then compare report scope, delivery and the complete written quote.
References
- Workplace Investigations | LKA Group (lkagroup.com.au)
- Workplace Investigator | Independent Workplace Investigation (worklogic.com.au)
- Investigation Services WISE Workplace (wiseworkplace.com.au)
- Workplace Investigations | Mapien (mapien.com.au)
- Independent Workplace Investigations (humanxhr.com.au)
- Workplace Investigations Tasmania | Lawyers Hobart | Paula Sutherland (psalaw.com.au)
- Fair Work Commission decision [2023] FWC 1103 (sets out Fair Work Act 2009 s.387 criteria) (fwc.gov.au)
