The joint WRC and HSA Code of Practice on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work sets out a staged approach beginning with informal resolution before any formal investigation. That is where mediation belongs — and understanding why the Code is built that way explains most of what follows.
Why Informal Comes First — and the Definition Trap
Formal bullying investigations are slow, adversarial and damaging to everyone who touches them — complainant included. And they carry a specific trap that causes enormous harm. The Code describes bullying as repeated inappropriate behaviour which could reasonably be regarded as undermining an individual’s right to dignity at work; an isolated incident, however unpleasant, generally does not meet it, and reasonable and appropriate management of performance or conduct is expressly not bullying. So the common outcome of a formal process is this: the investigation concludes the conduct did not meet the threshold, the complainant experiences that as being told they were wrong to complain, the person complained of feels permanently marked by having been investigated, and the working relationship — which is what actually needed fixing — is now considerably worse than before anyone started. Nobody wins that. Mediation does not engage the definition at all. It never asks whether a threshold was crossed, because it makes no findings; it asks how these people are going to work together from here. That is why it can resolve situations a formal process structurally cannot, and why the Code sensibly puts it first.
The Complaints That Must Be Investigated — and What a Room Can Deliver
The exclusions are firm and are applied at the first call rather than discovered halfway through. A complaint needs investigation, not mediation, where it alleges serious misconduct; where there is assault, threat or any potential criminal dimension; where it concerns sexual harassment or harassment on discriminatory grounds, which sit under distinct legal frameworks engaging an employer’s obligations directly; where a genuine health and safety concern arises; where a protected disclosure is involved; where multiple complainants allege the same conduct against one person, which may indicate a pattern requiring findings; and wherever a complainant is genuinely afraid of the other person, because a voluntary process cannot be run safely under fear. A complainant is also entitled to a formal investigation if that is what they want, and steering someone away from it is both wrong and legally risky for an employer. Where mediation is appropriate, what it delivers is usually closer to what the complainant actually wanted than a finding would have been: specific behaviours identified and committed to on both sides, changed reporting or communication arrangements, agreed protocols for meetings, handovers and email, an acknowledgment of impact — which is not an admission of bullying, and is frequently the thing that was needed all along — and a review point to test whether it held. Attempting it waives nothing: the formal route stays open, and that should be stated in writing at the outset.
A Dignity at Work Complaint You Are Not Sure How to Handle?
Ten lines on the complaint, everyone involved and the employer entity for the conflicts check. The first answer is always which process it needs - and sometimes that answer is 'investigate this properly'.
Call 01 5827148