By Rose Byass
Workplaces love to talk about values—respect, inclusion, zero harm. But when those values are tested by a formal complaint, particularly one involving bullying or psychological harm, some companies abandon them faster than a dropped slogan in a failed rebrand.
What happens next is more than just procedural failure—it's institutional betrayal.
Let’s be clear: when a formal HR complaint is made, particularly about bullying or psychological harm, it deserves more than a hollow acknowledgment and an internal reshuffling of responsibility. Yet too often, investigations are quietly handed to managers who are either implicated, conflicted, or too close to the issue to act impartially. The result? A process that looks legitimate on the surface—but leaves the complainant isolated, gaslit, and retraumatised. This isn't just unethical. It's negligent.
For the person brave enough to come forward, the decision to lodge a complaint is rarely made lightly. By the time a formal report is submitted, chances are the psychological toll has already been mounting—through exclusion, belittlement, passive aggression, or open hostility. They file the complaint not for revenge, but for resolution. For safety. For clarity. For dignity. And then comes the betrayal: the investigation is led by the same leadership structure that enabled the behaviour in the first place. Meetings feel performative. Outcomes are delayed. The silence becomes louder. Meanwhile, the individual is still showing up to work—often in the same team, under the same manager, surrounded by the same tension. An internal investigation managed by a direct or second-line leader is not only inappropriate—it’s dangerous. It sends a clear message: your harm is not as important as our hierarchy. That message reverberates psychologically and physically. It breaks trust. It causes sleep loss, anxiety, and illness. And sometimes, it breaks people.
Companies might convince themselves they’re protecting their own by keeping complaints in-house. But what they’re really doing is building a case—for the complainant’s lawyer. Workplace investigations must be procedurally fair, impartial, and documented. When they’re not, they expose the company to serious legal risk:
But beyond legal exposure lies an even more corrosive consequence: the culture rot that follows. When staff see their colleague mistreated for speaking up, they learn quickly that silence is safer than truth. Toxicity becomes normalised. Good people leave. Reputation decays. And no “values” poster in the world will stop the attrition, the disengagement, or the whispers of "don’t say anything—you’ll be next."
The way forward isn’t hard, but it requires courage:
Companies that get this right aren’t weaker for it—they’re stronger. They show integrity under pressure. And people remember that.
This case in the Federal Circuit Court is unfortunately one of may that highlight serious consequences employers face when failing to properly investigate workplace complaints. In this instance, a store manager alleged inappropriate behaviour by her managing director and was later informed her contract would not be renewed. The Court found this to be adverse action under the Fair Work Act, as her termination followed her workplace complaint. She was awarded compensation for the loss of income. The case underscores the critical importance of responding to allegations through formal investigations to ensure procedural fairness and avoid costly litigation.
In a separate case heard by the Fair Work Commission, a long-term employee of a transport company lodged a formal bullying complaint against her supervisor, citing repeated belittlement and intimidation. Instead of initiating a formal investigation, the company downplayed the allegations and advised the employee to "work it out informally." No formal records were kept, and the employee continued working under the same manager. Eventually, she went on extended stress leave, and not long after, her employment was terminated on the basis of "performance issues." The Commission found the employer had failed to meet its obligation to provide a psychologically safe workplace and determined the dismissal to be unfair, ordering compensation. This case reinforces the critical need for impartial, well-documented investigations—not avoidance and informal mediation—especially when psychological harm is alleged.
When organisations mishandle HR complaints—especially those involving psychological safety—they’re not just failing their people. They’re inviting legal, financial, and cultural collapse. Worse still, they’re telling the very people they claim to protect: your wellbeing is conditional. Your voice is inconvenient. Your pain is not our problem. But it is. And every day it’s ignored, the cost compounds. Because ignoring harm doesn't make it go away. It just makes it louder when it finally breaks through—and it always does.
Is your company is stuck in the 1980s where mishandling complaints is the norm. Let Robust Leaders interrupt the toxic and rebuild your potential. Call now for a free 30 minute discovery session.