River
Y CombinatorBacked by Y Combinator
FREE TEMPLATE

Workplace Investigation Report Template

Five documents and three sheets, including a timeline where every step carries the date it was required by rather than the date it happened.

Free download  ·  No account needed

Why the Clock Starts at Notice

The same file, on time and 63 working days late

Marloe Logistics, case ER-2026-014. Complaint form filed Thursday 6 August 2026. Ten steps, each with a working-day window set by Marloe's own policy.

StepDays
allowed
Required by,
from the form
SlipRequired by,
from notice
SlipDone
Interim measures decided210 Aug-113 May+627 Aug
Investigator appointed311 Aug014 May+6311 Aug
Preservation hold issued311 Aug014 May+6311 Aug
Complainant interviewed513 Aug018 May+6313 Aug
Respondent notified in writing513 Aug-118 May+6212 Aug
Respondent interviewed1020 Aug025 May+6320 Aug
Witness interviews complete1527 Aug-11 Jun+6226 Aug
Findings report delivered2510 Sep-415 Jun+594 Sep
Outcome communicated3017 Sep-722 Jun+568 Sep
Retention lock, file closed3524 Sep-1029 Jun+5310 Sep
Against the complaint form: 0 of 10 steps late, closed in 25 working days inside a 35-day window. Against the notice date: 10 of 10 late, closed in 88.

The notice date is Monday 11 May 2026, because the complainant raised the conduct with her shift supervisor in a 1:1 and the supervisor's own notebook records it. That is 87 calendar days and 63 working days before the form was filed. Nothing else about the file changed. One column did.

The three steps the standard is actually about

An employer is responsible for conduct between fellow employees where it knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show it took immediate and appropriate corrective action. That is a question about what happened first, not about how neatly the file was assembled afterwards. Interim measures +62. Investigator appointed +63. Preservation hold +63.

An investigation gets measured from the day somebody filled in a complaint form. Every deadline in the policy counts forward from that date, and the closing summary says the file took 25 working days. It is the wrong anchor. An employer is responsible for conduct between fellow employees where it knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show it took immediate and appropriate corrective action. The clock the standard runs on starts at knowledge rather than paperwork.

Marloe Logistics, a fictional 240-person warehouse software company, met all ten of its policy deadlines on case ER-2026-014 and passed internal review. Then the prior related records turned up a 1:1 note: the complainant had raised the conduct with her shift supervisor 63 working days before the form existed. Re-derive the same ten dates from that day and every one of them is late, by between 53 and 63 working days. Same file, same work, one column changed.

The delay did not only breach a deadline. The preservation hold went out 92 calendar days after notice, and four system records covering the alleged incidents had already auto-purged, the badge log for one date by six days. All four would have existed on the required-by date. That is why the hold is the second step here rather than a housekeeping item, and why the reporting route in the handbook is usually the corrective action that matters most.

Twenty evidence items, four allegations scored, four records already gone

The three sheets in the pack. Every figure comes from the same case file.

Every allegation carries its position

Computed from the evidence log, not asserted. Sources are counted rather than items, and a source is independent only where it has no reporting line to either party and no interest in the outcome.

AllegationCorroboratingIndependent
corrob sources
ContradictingIndependent
contra sources
As first
written
What the position
supports
A1 Repeated sexual comments on the warehouse floor9 items, 8 sources62 items, 1 source0SubstantiatedSubstantiated
A2 Rosters altered so she was scheduled alone5 items, 3 sources22 items, 1 source0SubstantiatedSubstantiated
A3 A threat about her shift premium4 items, 2 sources03 items, 2 sources1SubstantiatedNot substantiated on this evidence
A4 The 11 May report was never passed on7 items, 5 sources300Not substantiatedSubstantiated

Two of the four findings moved once each was scored. A1 and A3 were both written as substantiated. A1 rests on six independent corroborating sources. A3 rests on none: four items from two sources, being the complainant herself and one person who reports to her, with a payroll record showing the premium was never altered against it. Two items from one non-independent source is one non-independent source.

A4 went the other way, which is the direction nobody audits, because nobody re-reads the allegations that were dismissed. It has three independent corroborating sources and nothing contradicting it. It read as not substantiated because the investigation was scoped to the respondent's conduct and A4 is about the employer. It is also the allegation that establishes the notice date, so it is the reason every number on this page is what it is.

Evidence Log

Twenty numbered items. Each carries its source, the source's relationship to both parties, whether that source is independent, the date and manner it was obtained, and every allegation it bears on.

ItemWhat it isSourceRelationshipIndepObtainedBears onDirection
E02Shift supervisor's 1:1 notebook, entry of 11 MayFidelma OkonjoOwn conduct in scope under A4No12 AugA1, A4Corroborates
E03Chat messages, three threads 28 Apr to 6 MayTeam chat exportSystem recordYes12 AugA1Corroborates
E05Roster change log naming who made each swapShift scheduling toolSystem recordYes12 AugA2Corroborates
E09Interview, witness present on the floor 4 MayTobias RennerColleague, no reporting lineYes24 AugA1Corroborates
E12Interview, one of the complainant's direct reportsSelwyn AchterbergReports to the complainantNo25 AugA3Corroborates
E13Follow-up written statement, same direct reportSelwyn AchterbergReports to the complainantNo26 AugA3Corroborates
E15Escalation mailbox log, 11 May to 6 AugCase management systemSystem recordYes12 AugA4Corroborates
E16Exit interview of a former team member, 2 JunAurelio SandovalFormer employee, no relationshipYes12 AugA1Corroborates
E17Respondent's written response to the allegationsRespondentParty to the complaintNo18 AugA1, A2, A3Contradicts
E18Payroll record showing the premium was never alteredPayroll exportSystem recordYes21 AugA3Contradicts
20 items: 11 independent, 5 from a party, 4 from someone with an interest in the outcome. Seven exist only because a preservation hold was eventually issued.

The Relationship column is the one a report form leaves out, and it is what decides how much an item can carry. E02 is the sharpest case: the supervisor's own note is what establishes the notice date, it was written against her own interest, and she is still recorded as not independent on A4 because her conduct is in scope there.

Interview Register

One row per interview, with the guide chosen by relationship rather than one guide reused for everybody. Required-by dates on both anchors.

IntervieweeRelationshipIndepGuide usedRequired by,
from notice
HeldSlipCovers
ComplainantParty to the complaintNoComplainant or respondent18 May13 Aug+63A1 A2 A3 A4
RespondentParty to the complaintNoComplainant or respondent25 May20 Aug+63A1 A2 A3
Tobias RennerColleague, no reporting lineYesWitness1 Jun24 Aug+60A1
Ngozi AchebeColleague, no reporting lineYesWitness1 Jun24 Aug+60A1
Petra HalvorsenColleague, no reporting lineYesWitness1 Jun25 Aug+61A1 A2
Selwyn AchterbergReports to the complainantNoWitness, reporting line declared1 Jun25 Aug+61A3
Fidelma OkonjoOwn conduct in scope under A4NoPerson whose conduct is in scope1 Jun26 Aug+62A4
Seven interviews, three with an interviewee independent of both parties, all three of them on A1. A3 is covered by one interview, and the interviewee reports to the complainant.

That last line is why the register exists and why it is read before the findings are written rather than after. A3's gap was named in the investigation plan on 12 August, before any interview happened, which is the only point at which finding another source is still cheap. It was not closed, and the findings report says so instead of working around it.

The supervisor was moved from third to last after A4 entered scope. She is a subject on that allegation rather than a witness to it, so she needed the written notice and the right to be accompanied that a subject gets, and the amendment is dated at the foot of the plan rather than made silently.

What purged before the hold went out

The hold was issued Tuesday 11 August 2026, 92 calendar days after notice, against a required-by of Thursday 14 May.

SystemWhat it holdsAuto-purgeCoveredPurged onBefore the hold by
Warehouse floor CCTVCamera 3 and camera 7 footage30 days4 May incident3 Jun69 days
Warehouse floor CCTVCamera 3 and camera 7 footage30 days7 May incident6 Jun66 days
Badge access controllerDoor and turnstile events90 days4 May incident2 Aug9 days
Badge access controllerDoor and turnstile events90 days7 May incident5 Aug6 days
Shift scheduling toolPublished rosters and same-day swaps180 days4 and 7 May31 Oct, 3 Novheld
Team chatChannel and direct messages180 days28 Apr, 6 May25 Oct, 2 Novheld
Four of eight system records covering the alleged incidents were already gone. All four would have existed on 14 May.

The badge log for the 7 May incident purged six days before anybody asked for it. A hold triggered at intake would not have saved it; only one triggered at notice would. This is the part of the delay that cannot be argued with, and it is why the pack puts the hold second rather than filing it under process hygiene.

A retention obligation is not a substitute. A personnel record has to be preserved for a year from the date it was made, and once a charge of discrimination is filed, all personnel records relevant to that charge are preserved until final disposition of the charge or action. Every word of that reaches only a record that still exists.

What is in the pack

01

Timeline

Ten steps, each with the working days allowed, the obligation that sets them, and a required-by date on both anchors with the slip against each. Both columns stay, because a step late on one and on time on the other is a different finding from a step late on both.

02

Evidence Log

Numbered items, each with its source, the source's relationship to both parties, whether it is independent, the date and manner obtained, and every allegation it bears on. Ends with the records that purged before the hold and the days by which each missed.

03

Interview Register

One row per interview with the guide chosen by relationship, both required-by dates, and the allegations covered. Read before the findings are written, it shows an allegation covered by no independent interviewee while there is still time to find one.

04

Why the Clock Starts at Notice

The mechanism, in three pages. Why knowledge rather than paperwork is the trigger, what re-deriving ten dates from an earlier anchor does to a clean file, and why a retention rule cannot reach a record a system already deleted.

05

Investigation Plan

Written before the first interview and amended with dated lines rather than silently. Includes the section most plans skip: for each allegation, which independent corroborating sources actually exist, stated while the gap is still cheap to close.

06

Interview Guides

Four guides, one per relationship to the parties, because the relationship decides what a person is owed beforehand and what their evidence can carry afterwards. Includes the question that produces the notice date and the one that catches contamination.

07

Findings Report

Each allegation with its evidence position on the same page as its finding, and the reasoning written out in full wherever a finding moved after scoring. Separates process recommendations from conduct recommendations, which belong to the decision-maker.

08

Outcome Communication

Three letters and a memorandum. Each party hears only the allegations that concern them, a not-substantiated finding is explained without hedging, and the memorandum tells the decision-maker to record the delay rather than leave it to be found. Where a substantiated finding leads to a termination decision, that decision runs its own documentation and timing check before it is communicated.

How it works

  1. 1

    Send the complaint and the prior related records

    The second half is the request usually waved away and the one that matters. Earlier reports about the same person or team, exit interviews, survey free-text comments, and manager 1:1 notes from the period.

  2. 2

    The notice date comes back first, with the gap

    Whose knowledge establishes it and which document evidences it, then the gap to the complaint date in working days. That single number is the most consequential output of the first run, and it is better known now than at a hearing.

  3. 3

    Then the hold, before anything else

    Each system's retention period against the dates in question, split into already gone, at risk within weeks, and safe. The system inventory is what the hold has to reach, and an unconfirmed hold is not a hold.

  4. 4

    Dates, plan, interviews, then scoring before findings

    Every allegation gets four counts computed from the log before a single finding is written. Expect at least one finding to move, and expect one of them to be an allegation that was dismissed rather than one that was upheld. One case here is also a single data point for the manager-level pattern this respondent's team shows across every case on file.

Frequently asked questions

Why not measure the investigation from the complaint form?

Because responsibility attaches earlier. An employer is responsible for conduct between fellow employees where it knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it took immediate and appropriate corrective action. Marloe's file was 0 of 10 steps late on the form and 10 of 10 on notice.

What actually counts as notice?

A report reaching a supervisor, manager, or anyone the organisation speaks through, whether or not it was written down, escalated or believed. At Marloe it was a 1:1 note in the shift supervisor's own notebook, which is also the item that later evidenced the allegation about the escalation route.

Does establishing an earlier date not just make us look worse?

The date already exists, usually in somebody else's notebook, so the only question is who produces it. A file that records the delay and what is being done about it is defensible. One that is silent is not, and the silence is what gets examined afterwards.

Why is the preservation hold the second step rather than routine?

Because it is the only step where a day's delay is unrecoverable. Four Marloe records had auto-purged before the hold, one badge log by six days, and all four would have existed on the required-by date. Retention rules only reach records that still exist.

How long do we have to keep the file?

A personnel record must be preserved for a year from the date it was made, and once a charge of discrimination is filed, all records relevant to it until final disposition. Final disposition is not a date you can compute in advance, so the file goes on hold rather than on a schedule.

What does scoring an allegation change about the finding?

Two of Marloe's four findings moved. A1 and A3 were both written as substantiated: A1 on six independent corroborating sources, A3 on none, being four items from the complainant and one person who reports to her. Counting items instead of sources hides that completely.

What format are the downloaded files, and is it free?

Five Word documents and three CSV sheets in one zip, free and with no account. The documents open in Word, Pages and Google Docs, the sheets in Excel, Numbers and Google Sheets. Edit with AI installs the same pack as a private Space and derives the dates against your own policy.

Find out which date your investigation is actually measured from

Send the complaint, the prior related records, your own policy deadlines in working days, and the systems that might hold something. What comes back first is the notice date with the document behind it, the gap to the complaint date, and the list of records about to expire.

Edit with AI