As workplace investigators, we’ve seen our fair share of issues in the workplace. We’ve learnt that no two investigations are the same – they are all unique and come with their own set of complexities.

One of our biggest frustrations?

A one-size-fits-all approach to stand employees down at the first whiff of an allegation, assuming it creates procedural fairness. Sure, there are many cases where a stand-down is justified—like when there’s a genuine safety risk or to prevent evidence tampering —but more often than not, it’s an unnecessary overreach that can do more harm than good.

Here’s why we don’t love stand downs:

1. It Feels Like a Presumption of Guilt

Standing an employee down can create the perception that they’re already guilty. Even though your letters and discussions say that there is no presumption of guilt, the affected party looks at it differently. It signals to colleagues (and the employee themselves) that something serious must have happened, even before the facts are established. This can irreparably damage reputations—even if the person is later cleared.

2. It Can Escalate a Manageable Situation

Not every investigation involves misconduct so severe that the employee must be removed from the workplace. Yet, employers often default to standing someone down instead of considering alternatives like working remotely, modified duties, supervision, a temporary reassignment, or introducing temporary communication protocols in place. A heavy-handed response can create unnecessary tension and make a situation feel far more dramatic than it actually is.

3. It Undermines Trust in the Process

Employees need to believe that workplace investigations are fair. But when someone is stood down before they even have a chance to respond, it can make them (and their colleagues) question whether the process is truly impartial. For an investigator, it is very important for us to be able to build trust with the parties, or they will not open up to us honestly. Building trust becomes twice as hard when the reasons for the stand down are not convincing.

If the goal is to maintain procedural fairness, starting with a punitive-looking measure is not the way to do it.

4. It Disrupts the Workplace More Than It Helps

Contrary to what some employers think, standing an employee down doesn’t always “stabilize” the situation—it often creates more uncertainty. It can fuel speculation, increase anxiety, increases workload for others, and results in awkward water-cooler conversations.

Plus, if the investigation drags on (which they often do), the prolonged absence can cause unnecessary disruption.

5. It Makes Repair and Rebuilding Relationships Harder

Investigations cause disruption to the individuals and the entire team. Employers may like to think investigations are completely confidential, however long and unexplained absence of a team member, the awkward re-allocation of their duties to others, and overall tension in the air speaks volumes – everyone knows something is wrong! Rebuilding relationships in such cases, especially if both parties are expected to continue working together becomes complex and time consuming.

The Bottom Line

Is a stand down truly necessary, or have we assumed this is the only way?

In our view, standing an employee down should be the exception, not the default. Procedural fairness isn’t just a checkbox; it requires critical thinking and should fit what the situation demands. What’s procedurally fair for one must not create lack of fairness for another.

Thoughtful handling of workplace investigations—without unnecessary stand-downs—can make all the difference in ensuring a fair and balanced outcome.

Have a situation you need help with? Give us a call now.