---
title: "Workplace investigation terms of reference, allegation schedule and interview plan"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/precedents/employment-and-workplace-relations/workplace-investigation-terms-of-reference"
type: "precedent"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "a14-workplace-investigation-terms-of-reference"
area_id: "A14"
kind: "policy"
ai_level: "yellow"
version: 1
task_ids: ["A49-R20260922-1", "A49-R20260922-2", "A49-R20260922-3"]
law_stated_as_at: "2026-10-18"
---

# Workplace investigation terms of reference, allegation schedule and interview plan

> Terms of reference for a workplace misconduct investigation: decision maker, investigator, scope, particularised allegations, standard of proof, procedural fairness, interviews, evidence, confidentiality, AI rules and…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/precedents/employment-and-workplace-relations/workplace-investigation-terms-of-reference  
Law stated as at: 2026-10-18

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

Terms of reference for a workplace misconduct investigation: decision maker, investigator, scope, particularised allegations, standard of proof, procedural fairness, interviews, evidence, confidentiality, AI rules and the report, with an allegation schedule and interview plan.

## Key facts

- Kind: Policy. A policy or procedure for a firm or client.
- Practice area: [Employment & Workplace Relations](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/employment-and-workplace-relations.md)
- Jurisdictions: Australia, Commonwealth
- AI level: Yellow. AI can help in set ways. A lawyer checks specific points before use.
- Law stated as at: 2026-10-18
- Status: Maintained. Checked on 2026-10-18 against the authority it cites, for Australia and Commonwealth.

## When to use it

Use when an employer appoints an internal or external investigator into complaints of misconduct, bullying, sexual harassment or other workplace conduct that may lead to disciplinary action. Settle it before anyone is interviewed. If the investigation is to be privileged, set it up through lawyers as well.

## Used for these tasks

- [Build an allegation chronology from permitted documents](https://ailawframework.com/practice/employment-and-workplace-relations/build-an-allegation-chronology-from-permitted-documents.md)
- [Draft an interview plan from the allegation list](https://ailawframework.com/practice/employment-and-workplace-relations/draft-an-interview-plan-from-the-allegation-list.md)
- [Prepare findings without delegating credibility](https://ailawframework.com/practice/employment-and-workplace-relations/prepare-findings-without-delegating-credibility.md)

## How AI may be used

AI may draft the terms of reference from the complaint and policies, build the allegation chronology from permitted documents and propose interview topics, but the decision maker settles the allegations and the investigator alone assesses credibility and makes findings.

**AI may:**

- Draft the terms of reference from the complaint, the relevant policies and the decision maker’s instructions
- Build a chronology for each allegation from documents the investigator is permitted to use
- Propose neutral interview topics and document requests for each witness, for the investigator to edit

**AI must not:**

- Must not assess credibility, weigh evidence or make or draft findings
- Must not frame allegations beyond the complaint and evidence, or in language that presumes a finding
- Must not transcribe or summarise interviews without consent and an approved tool, or process complaint material in a tool that retains or trains on it

**The lawyer checks:**

- Each allegation is particularised (who, what, when, where) so the respondent can answer it
- The respondent will be told the allegations and the evidence relied on and given a genuine opportunity to respond, with a support person, before findings (s 387(b) to (d))
- The investigator is independent of the matters and the decision maker is separate from the investigator where practicable
- The scope does not stray into matters the employer has not authorised, and the report format separates findings from any recommendations on outcome

## Authorities

- [Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 387 (in deciding whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable: valid reason, notification of the reason, opportunity to respond, support person, warnings, size of enterprise and HR expertise)](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s387.html)

## Full text and drafting notes

The full text and the drafting notes are not part of this public page. Signed-in firm accounts can read them at https://ailawframework.com/precedents/employment-and-workplace-relations/workplace-investigation-terms-of-reference and through the signed-in MCP connector https://ailawframework.com/mcp/firm.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*