An Employee Has Accused a Colleague of Bullying: What Sheffield Employers Should Do
A bullying or harassment complaint is one of the most uncomfortable situations a small employer can face. You're usually dealing with two employees you know well, strong emotions on both sides, and a genuine risk of getting it wrong either way — dismiss the complaint too quickly and you leave someone unsupported and exposed to legal risk; act too aggressively before you've established the facts and you risk treating the accused employee unfairly. Here's how to approach it properly.
Take it seriously immediately — but don't assume guilt
The moment a bullying or harassment complaint is raised, it needs to be taken seriously and acted on promptly. That doesn't mean assuming the accused employee is guilty — it means committing to a fair, thorough process that gets to the facts before any conclusions are drawn. Both employees deserve that.
Separate "informal resolution" from "formal complaint"
Not every complaint needs a full formal grievance process. If the complaint is relatively minor and both parties are willing, a facilitated conversation or informal mediation can sometimes resolve things faster and with less damage to working relationships. But this only works where the employee raising the complaint feels genuinely comfortable with that route — never push someone toward informal resolution because it's easier for you. If they want it treated formally, or the allegations are serious (harassment related to a protected characteristic, for example), it needs the full formal grievance process.
Consider separating the individuals during the investigation
Depending on the severity and the working relationship, it may be appropriate to temporarily adjust reporting lines, shift patterns, or physical proximity while the investigation takes place — not as a punishment, but to reduce ongoing distress and risk while facts are established. Be careful this isn't seen as punishing the complainant by moving them rather than the accused, which can itself feel like a detriment.
Investigate properly, with a genuinely open mind
Speak to the person who raised the complaint in detail, get specific examples, dates, and any evidence (messages, emails, witnesses)
Speak to the accused employee and give them a fair chance to respond to each specific allegation
Speak to any witnesses named by either party
Keep detailed, dated notes throughout
Avoid discussing the case with anyone who doesn't need to be involved — confidentiality matters enormously here, in both directions
Know the difference between "unpleasant" and "unlawful"
Not every difficult interpersonal relationship at work is bullying in a legal sense, and not every complaint escalates to harassment law. But if the behaviour relates to a protected characteristic — sex, race, disability, age, religion, sexual orientation and others — it can constitute harassment under the Equality Act, which carries its own legal risk and removes any cap on potential compensation at tribunal. Getting this distinction right early shapes how seriously and how formally the whole process needs to run.
Watch for the get-out-quietly instinct — resist it
In a small team, the instinct is sometimes to quietly manage the situation out — reshuffle someone's role, encourage someone to move on, avoid the discomfort of a formal process. This rarely works well. It leaves the underlying issue unresolved, can look like you avoided proper process if it resurfaces later, and often means the wrong person ends up feeling pushed out.
Reach a reasoned outcome and communicate it properly
Once the investigation is complete, reach a conclusion based on the evidence — upheld, partially upheld, or not upheld — and communicate it to both parties, along with any actions being taken. Both employees are entitled to know the outcome, even if the specific disciplinary consequences for the accused (if any) remain confidential.
Why South Yorkshire small employers find this particularly hard
In a business with a handful of staff, everyone knows everyone, which makes objectivity difficult and the fallout from getting it wrong — for team morale, for retention, for your own credibility as an employer — much more visible. This is exactly the kind of situation where bringing in an independent, external person to run the investigation is worth the cost: it removes the "I work with both of them" conflict entirely, and gives both employees confidence the process was fair.