If you work in HR, you know within minutes whether a complaint is going to be manageable or whether it has the potential to spiral.
Not because you already know the facts, but because you can feel the organisation’s temperature around complaints straight away.
Does the employee trust the process, or are they already defensive?
Is the manager focused on resolving the issue, or protecting themselves?
Is there any shared understanding of what happens next?
Those early signals matter, because employee complaints are rarely just about the issue being raised. They are about trust. Over time, I’ve stopped thinking of employee complaints as cases to process and started thinking of them as culture indicators. The way an organisation handles complaints tells employees whether speaking up is genuinely safe, or whether it is encouraged in theory but punished in practice.
That’s why getting complaint handling right matters far beyond legal compliance. People Management has repeatedly highlighted that culture crises rarely happen because no one raised concerns. They happen because concerns were raised but not handled well. When employees see inconsistency, silence, or fear around complaints, they stop speaking up.
So here’s a genuinely practical, step by step approach to handling employee complaints and investigations, written from an HR perspective, not a legal one.
Make onboarding a meaningful experience for remote and hybrid employees. With tasks, notifications and content ideas.
Download Now.
The biggest mistake organisations make with employee complaints is treating the first response as admin. It isn’t. That first response is the moment an employee decides whether the organisation is safe.
By the time someone raises a concern, they may have been sitting with it for weeks. If it involves harassment, discrimination, or power dynamics, they may already have searched for how to file a workplace harassment complaint before ever speaking to HR. If the way complaints are raised and handled initially feels unclear, fragmented, or intimidating, many employees simply won’t use it.
A good first response is simple and human. Employees should know where to go, who will see their complaint, and what will happen next. Fieldfisher makes the point clearly. Complaints policies need to be easy to understand, visible, and transparent. If people cannot find or understand your process, it might as well not exist.
Acknowledgement matters just as much. Employees aren’t asking for instant answers. They are asking to be taken seriously. A prompt response that explains next steps, without overpromising, sets the tone for everything that follows.
From a practical HR perspective, this is also where structure matters. Complaints come in through emails, managers, corridor conversations, and formal submissions. Without a single way to log and track employee complaints, ownership becomes unclear and consistency disappears. That is often where trust starts to break down.
Not every complaint needs a full investigation, but every complaint needs a considered response. Triage is where HR earns credibility.
At this stage, you are asking some very basic but important questions. Is this a relationship issue that needs management action or mediation? Is it a potential policy breach? Is it a safeguarding or harassment concern? Is it something that could escalate externally if mishandled? And crucially, does this need to become a formal employee relations investigation?
Acas guidance is clear that when an investigation is needed, employees should be told quickly, informed who will investigate, and given an idea of what the process will look like. That clarity reduces anxiety and prevents speculation.
If the issue involves harassment, it is important to explain clearly how to file a workplace harassment complaint internally, even if the employee has already approached HR informally. This is not about bureaucracy. It is about setting expectations, explaining protections, and making sure documentation is clear from the outset.
Employees can usually tell whether triage is being done thoughtfully or whether their concern is being minimised. This is one of those moments where HR is “seen to” take complaints seriously, or not.
Ivan Harding explores the disconnect between how HR leaders perceive their organization's employee experience and how employees actually feel about it. Read Now
Once you decide to investigate, two things must happen immediately. Someone must own the investigation, and there must be a plan.
Employee relations investigations work best when there is a clearly identified lead, often the employee relations manager. This role matters more than many organisations realise. The employee relations manager brings consistency, neutrality, and structure, especially when emotions are high or pressure from leaders is intense.
The plan itself does not need to be complicated, but it must be intentional. What exactly is being investigated? Which policies are relevant? Who needs to be spoken to? What evidence needs to be gathered? What are realistic timelines? What interim steps might be needed, and how can they be applied without appearing punitive?
A lack of planning is one of the reasons investigations drift. And when investigations drift, trust collapses.
Five shifts redefining HRSD, based on original research. This report gives HR leaders a clear view of what’s changing — and practical steps to deliver faster, more human support. Read Now.
This is the stage most people imagine when they hear the word “investigation”, but consistency matters more than speed.
Investigating a complaint is not about proving guilt. It is about gathering facts fairly. Acas is clear that investigations should be objective, focused on evidence, and carried out through a reasonable and transparent process.
In employee relations investigations, inconsistency causes more damage than almost anything else. Interviewing one person casually and another formally. Asking leading questions. Recording some conversations but not others. Relying on memory instead of notes. These choices may seem small, but they become significant if an outcome is challenged or if an employee feels unfairly treated.
This is where HR teams often struggle operationally. When hr complaints are managed through emails, spreadsheets, and shared drives, it becomes hard to demonstrate consistency, track progress, or keep a clear audit trail. Even good investigative work can look disorganised, which undermines confidence in the process.
This isn’t just theoretical. Employment tribunals have repeatedly criticised employers where investigations were rushed, poorly structured, or lacked independence. In one recent case, a dismissal was found to be unfair because the employer failed to carry out a reasonable investigation and did not properly separate the roles of investigator and decision-maker. The issue wasn’t the allegation itself, but the way the investigation was handled.
One of the most common complaints employees have about investigations is silence. They do not expect full disclosure, but they do expect communication.
Regular updates matter. Silence creates stories. Complainants assume they are being ignored. Respondents assume decisions have already been made. Managers fill gaps with their own narratives. Transparent communication does not mean oversharing. It means letting people know the process is active and progressing.
This is where case management software, including AI supported tools, can make a real difference. Not by replacing judgement, but by reducing process failure. A structured system helps HR track timelines, ownership, evidence, and communication across employee complaints and employee relations investigations.
This is also where Applaud fits naturally. Applaud gives HR teams and employee relations managers a single view of complaints and investigations. It supports consistent tracking, clean documentation, and visibility across cases, making it easier to keep processes moving and communication timely.
Outcomes are where trust is tested most. Employees can often accept outcomes they disagree with more easily than outcomes they do not understand.
CIPD consistently stresses that outcomes should be fair, proportionate, and applied consistently. Consistency does not mean identical responses. It means a clear, defensible rationale that is applied fairly.
Documentation matters here. When decisions are grounded in evidence and policy, they are easier to explain and defend. When they are not, employees sense it immediately.
When communicating outcomes, share what you can. That the issue was taken seriously. That it was investigated. That appropriate action was taken. Often, that is what employees need to rebuild trust.
This is the step organisations skip most often. Once an outcome is delivered, the case is treated as closed. Culturally, that is a mistake.
Follow up matters. Check in with the complainant and respondent. Watch for retaliation risk. Reinforce expectations with managers. And look for patterns. Are certain teams overrepresented in hr complaints? Are the same issues appearing repeatedly? Are managers unclear on policy? Are employees unclear on how to raise concerns?
People Management makes the point that organisations need to improve and be seen to improve. When employees see that complaints lead to training, leadership action, or policy change, trust grows. When they see the same issues repeat, trust disappears.
Applaud supports this learning loop by giving HR visibility across complaints and investigations, making it easier to move from reactive case handling to proactive culture protection.
The aim is not to eliminate employee complaints. A lack of complaints is not a sign of health. It is often a sign of fear.
A resilient organisation has a complaints process employees trust. That means clear intake, thoughtful triage, consistent investigations, regular communication, fair outcomes, and visible learning. It also means equipping HR with tools that make good practice easier to sustain.
Handled well, employee complaints do not weaken culture. They strengthen it. They show employees that standards matter and that speaking up is safe.
That is what good complaint handling looks like in practice, step by step.
Whether it’s a new hire finding their feet or an employee navigating a complex, sensitive issue, the right Human Resources support system provides clarity, confidence, and a sense of culture — delivering a process your people are happy to engage with.
At Applaud, we help organizations do just that — bringing together intelligent self-service, people-first case management, and adaptable tools in one seamless experience that supports every success factor outlined above.
Because when every interaction feels effortless, fair, and personal, your most important customers — your employees — feel seen, supported, and ready to thrive.
Annabel Joseph is the Director of People at Applaud. She is a member of the Senior Leadership Team and contributes to shaping the company's direction. Her professional journey, marked by diverse sectors and international experience has led to her role in HR Technology, a true passion of hers given the relatable field. Annabel is CIPD level 7 qualified and holds a bachelor's law degree.