You don’t have to look far—deadly mushroom trials, baby reindeers, Jeffrey Epstein clickbait—to see people who fancy themselves as amateur sleuths.
But an appetite for a mystery and a love of detail can easily turn into a tangle that snares a workplace investigator in a mess of contradictory facts and suspicions with no clear way out.
So how do you avoid ending up in this time, money, and risk trap? Draft clear allegations that are capable of being fairly investigated. The trick to this is knowing what should and should not be included in allegations and how to glean that information.
Below is a walk-through of the process of drafting a procedurally fair allegation, from the initial interview with the person making the complaint (the “complainant”) to the final wording. 
What a procedurally fair allegation looks like
A procedurally fair allegation is not a rambling account of events or a list of vague grievances. It is a concise, factual statement that clearly outlines the alleged misconduct. Think of it as the who-what-when-where — it must be specific enough for the person being accused (the “respondent”) to understand exactly what they are accused of and be able to prepare a meaningful response.
Key characteristics include:
- Specificity: It must detail the specific conduct in question. Instead of saying “John was rude to Jane,” a better allegation would be “On June 1, 2025, at approximately 2:30 p.m., in the main conference room, John raised his voice at Jane, used an expletive, and called her a ‘failure.'”
- Factual basis: The allegation should be based on factual claims, not on opinions, feelings, or interpretations. It should describe what happened, not why it happened or how the complainant felt about it.
- Clarity: The language must be easy to understand and free of jargon. Avoid legalistic terms and corporate buzzwords.
- Non-prejudicial language: The allegation must be neutral in tone and avoid language that suggests guilt. For instance, instead of saying “John’s aggressive outburst,” use “John’s conduct.”
What should and should never be included in allegations
When drafting allegations, the goal is to create a focused and objective statement.
What to include:
- Who: The individuals involved—the alleged perpetrator and the complainant.
- What: The specific behaviours or actions that constitute the alleged misconduct.
- When: The date, time, and frequency of the alleged events. If there were multiple instances, list them individually.
- Where: The location where the alleged events took place.
What to avoid:
- Emotional language: Do not include the complainant’s feelings, emotions, or interpretations of the events.
- Character judgments: Avoid making judgments about the respondent’s character or intent.
- Irrelevant information: Do not include information that is not directly related to the alleged misconduct.
- Conflated events: Avoid combining multiple, distinct events into a single, vague allegation.
How to interview a complainant when drafting allegations
The interview with the complainant is the most critical step in gathering the information needed to draft sound allegations. Your role is to actively probe and clarify to transform their story into factual statements.
- Start broad, then narrow: Begin by letting the complainant tell their story in their own words. Listen for the key events, dates, times, and locations.
- Drill down to specifics: Once you have a general understanding, start asking very specific, closed-ended questions to pin down the details. For example, “You said he was rude. Can you give me an exact quote of what he said?”
- Focus on observable behaviour: Steer the conversation away from feelings and interpretations and towards observable actions. If the complainant says, “I felt she was trying to undermine me,” ask, “What did she say or do that led you to believe that?”
Drafting allegations with reporting in mind
The way you draft your allegations will have a direct impact on the structure and content of your final investigation report. By being mindful of the reporting process from the beginning, you can streamline your work.
- Number each allegation: Assign a unique number to each allegation.
- Link evidence to allegations: Gather relevant evidence – where it exists – that supports the allegations’ specifics. This could include emails, meeting agendas or screenshots of social media messages and will be invaluable when you start writing your report.
- Start to create a table or list of evidence: Organize the evidence that supports the allegations in a clear format as you gather and review it, so you can cross-reference it with witness evidence down the track.
Tips & traps when drafting allegations
- Tip: Use “who,” “what,” “when,” and “where” as your guide. Every allegation should be able to answer these four questions.
- Trap: Do not simply copy and paste from the complainant’s email or statement or share it with the respondent. These are often emotional and contain non-factual information.
- Tip: Be prepared to re-draft. The initial allegations may need to be refined after the complainant has reviewed the draft to ensure they accurately reflect their concerns.
- Trap: Do not promise the complainant that you will include every single one of their grievances.
- Tip: When in doubt, err on the side of simplicity and specificity. It is better to have several short, clear allegations than one long, convoluted one.
By following this process, you can ensure that your workplace investigations are built on a solid foundation of procedural fairness. Well-drafted allegations protect the rights of both the complainant and the respondent, leading to more credible findings and defensible outcomes.
If you would like to learn more about drafting procedurally fair allegations, Worklogic runs a popular training course called Drafting Allegations as a Essentials course (2 hours) or as Masterclass (3.5 hours). Check out upcoming training or get in touch to find out more.