To investigate or not to investigate: Triaging employee complaints

Often it can be difficult for an employer to know how to respond when they receive a complaint from an employee, including whether or not they should be commencing a formal investigation.

Helpfully, the recent determination of the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) in Lowings v Vice Chancellor of the University of Canterbury[1] provided some guidance on the matter.

What happened?

Mr Lowings had been dismissed from his employment as Electronics and Software Design Technician due to poor performance. He subsequently raised personal grievances for unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage.

As part of his unjustified dismissal claim, Mr Lowings alleged that his employer had failed to investigate a bullying complaint that he had made in relation to his manager, after performance concerns were identified.

The employer had conducted an initial assessment of Mr Lowings’ complaint at the time it was made and concluded that there was insufficient evidence of bullying; as such, a formal investigation was not required. The complaint also lacked specificity and Mr Lowings refused to provide further details.

Mr Lowings, however, challenged the employer’s assessment and again asked that his complaint be investigated. Mr Lowings also requested that the employer engage a law firm to review his complaint and put in place an alternative reporting line.

The employer said that it would discuss the matter with Mr Lowings’ manager and arrange for external mediation. In the interim, the employer agreed to including a temporary change in Mr Lowings’ reporting line. The employer also provided Mr Lowings with the alternative option of returning to work (as he was now working from home) on the basis that the complaint would not be discussed with his manager.

The employer engaged a law firm to review Mr Lowings’ complaints, as he had requested. The firm law advised the employer that the behaviour referred to in Mr Lowings complaint was unlikely to meet the threshold for bullying. This reinforced the employer’s view that a formal investigation was not appropriate.

Subsequently, the parties attended mediation and, following that, the employer advised Mr Lowings that his reporting line would revert back to his manager.

What did the Authority say?

The Authority found that the employer had been responsive to Mr Lowings’ complaint but was unable to proceed any further because he refused to provide further details.

The Authority also considered that the employer behaved reasonably by discussing the matter with Mr Lowings’ manager, putting temporary alternative working arrangement in place and agreeing to attend mediation to further discuss Mr Lowings’ concerns.

Overall, the employer had acted fairly and reasonably once alerted to Mr Lowings’ complaint and he was not unjustifiably disadvantaged in relation to the employer’s decision not to investigate.

Key takeaways

So, what can employers take away from Lowings v Vice Chancellor of the University of Canterbury?

• Make sure you respond to any complaints or concerns promptly.
• Triage the situation – is the matter sufficiently serious so as to warrant a formal employment process? If you need further information to help you make that assessment, ask for it.
• If a formal employment process is not appropriate, are there any informal steps you can take to resolve the employee’s complaint or concerns?
• Consider whether there are any alternative working arrangements that you need to put in place while the matter is being resolved.
• Seek advice from an employment law specialist to ensure that you are on the right track.

Katrina Pfeifer – Special Counsel, Wynn Williams Dispute Resolution Team (Employment)

Sarah Hood – Associate, Wynn Williams Dispute Resolution Team (Employment)

[1]               Lowings v Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canterbury [2025] NZERA 189.