In the workplace, restorative healing is about fixing harm and rebuilding trust rather than just handing out punishments. It focuses on honest conversations and taking responsibility to help the organisation stay healthy and productive.  

How it Works

• Building Relationships: It’s used both to prevent problems before they start and to solve conflicts like bullying or misconduct when they happen.  Managers need to set expectations in meetings about behaviours and encourage dialogue.
• A Choice, not a Force: Participation is voluntary. It’s a safe, respectful process led by a neutral person.
• Giving Everyone a Voice: Unlike traditional legal-style hearings, this allows everyone involved to share their side, feel heard, and find a way to move forward together. This will only apply to low level conduct issues.
• Better Results: This approach leads to less repeated bad behaviour and a much more positive workplace culture.

Restorative practices, such as "restorative conversations," involve bringing together those affected by a harmful event to discuss what happened, its impact, and how to move forward.  This may be used for low level misconduct where both parties agree they prefer to work it through.  This is an example of restorative conversation.

To give you a clear idea of how this works, here is a breakdown of a restorative conversation between two colleagues—Alex (who made a mistake) and Sam (who was affected).Instead of a manager just "laying down the law," a neutral facilitator guides the discussion using specific, non-confrontational questions.

Here is a simple checklist for managers or facilitators to guide a restorative conversation. This keeps the focus on the problem and the solution, rather than the person.

Preparation

• Ensure it’s voluntary: Confirm both parties want to sit down and talk.
• Find a neutral space: Use a quiet room where there will be no interruptions.
• Set the tone: Explain that this isn’t about "blame," but about "making things right."

The "What Happened?" Phase
•    Listen to the act: Ask, "What happened, and what were you thinking at the time?"
•    Check the current view: Ask, "What have you thought about since then?"
•    Identify the hurt: Ask the affected person, "How has this affected you and others?"

The "Repair" Phase

• Acknowledge responsibility: Ensure the person who caused the harm understands who was impacted.
• Ask for the solution: Ask, "What do you think needs to happen to make things right?"
• Agree on the future: Ask the affected person, "What do you need to see from them to move forward?"

Closing & Follow-up

• Document the agreement: Write down the specific steps both people agreed to.
• Schedule a check-in: Set a date (e.g., in two weeks) to see if the plan is working.

Key Questions to consider:

• "What has been the hardest part of this for you?"
• "What could you have done differently?"
• "What do we need to do to make sure this doesn't happen again?"

• Do use open-ended questions: Ask "What happened?" instead of "Why did you do that?" "Why" often sounds like an accusation.
• Do stay curious, not furious: Approach the conversation as if you are trying to solve a puzzle, not punish a person.
• Do use "I" statements: Encourage both parties to say "I felt..." or "I noticed..." rather than "You always..."
• Do allow for silence: People often need a few seconds to process their emotions before they give an honest answer. Don't rush to fill the quiet.
• Do focus on the action, not the person: Address the behaviour ("missing the deadline") rather than the character ("being lazy").

• Don’t take sides: Even if one person is clearly in the wrong, your job is to facilitate the repair, not to join the attack.
• Don’t interrupt: Let each person finish their thought completely. This builds the "safety" required for the process to work.
• Don’t suggest the solution too early: Let the participants come up with the fix. They are much more likely to stick to a plan they created themselves.
• Don’t minimise feelings: Avoid saying things like "It’s not a big deal" or "Let’s just move on." If it wasn't a big deal, you wouldn't be having the meeting.
• Don’t use "Lawyer Language": Avoid overly formal or legalistic terms. Keep it human.
• A Quick Tip for Neutrality:

If you feel yourself getting frustrated, take a breath and ask: "What do you need from this meeting to feel like we've resolved this?" This puts the responsibility back on the participants and keeps you in the facilitator role. 

Before starting an investigation, the commissioning manager must set clear boundaries and goals. You should also name the specific policies you are following.

• Handling New Information: If the investigator finds new details during the process, ask the Commissioning Manager if they should be added to the current investigation. If the new information isn't relevant to your case but is still important, report it as a separate issue so a new investigation can be started if needed.
•  Stick to the facts that matter. Ignoring irrelevant information prevents the investigation from dragging on too long.
• Finding the Balance: Don't make the investigation too broad or too narrow. If the scope is off, you might miss your goals or treat people unfairly.

• Be Clear: Know exactly what you are (and aren't) investigating from day one.
• Be Timely: A tight scope leads to a faster result.
• Be Flexible: Update the plan with your manager if the situation changes.

Planning is arguably the most critical part of a successful investigation. At KFRS, the Investigation Team uses a standard template to create this plan, which must then be approved by the Commissioning Manager.

A solid plan keeps the case on track, helps manage priorities, and ensures tasks are finished on time.

To be effective, the investigation plan needs to cover three main areas:

1. Clear Objectives: Identify exactly what you are trying to prove or disprove.
2. Lines of Inquiry: Map out what evidence you need to find and the order in which you will look for it.
3. Flexibility: Be ready to change your approach as new information comes to light.

• Alignment: It ensures everyone understands the scope (the boundaries) of the case.
• Focus: It prevents the team from getting distracted by irrelevant details.
• Efficiency: It allows different parts of the investigation to happen at the same time (concurrently), saving time.

Investigations are stressful. Whether someone is the person complaining (complainant), the person being investigated (respondent), or a witness, the process can affect their mental health and reputation.

To protect everyone involved and keep the investigation "clean," you should:

• Work Quietly (Covertly): Whenever possible, gather documents or data without alerting others. This prevents rumours and stops evidence from being tampered with.
• Be Direct (Overtly): Only speak to people directly when necessary.
• Maintain Confidentiality: Keeping things private protects reputations and ensures the investigation remains fair and honest.

Evidence comes in many forms. A thorough investigator looks for:

• Testimony: Verbal accounts or formal written statements.
• Digital/Visual: Photos or recordings.
• Physical: Actual objects related to the case.

Gathering evidence is only half the job. You must keep an accurate log of every item you collect to prove it hasn't been messed with. For every piece of evidence, record:

• How it was found.
• Who found it.
• When it was collected.
• Where it is being securely stored.

Evidence log Requirement     -     Why it Matters
Source     -     Proves the evidence is authentic.
Custodian     -     Shows who was responsible for it.
Timestamp     -     Creates a clear timeline of events.
Storage Location     -     Ensures the evidence is kept safe and confidential.
 

To stay fair and organised, you should review evidence systematically:

• Inventory: List every piece of evidence you have collected.
• Test: Decide if each piece supports or disproves the specific allegation.
• The Big Picture: Look at the "totality" (all evidence combined) to see what story it tells.

While reviewing, you might find new "lines of inquiry" (new paths to follow). Before chasing them, ask yourself:

• Is it relevant? Does it fit the original scope?
• Is it necessary? If I ignore this, will the result be unfair or biased?
• Is it exhaustive? Have I looked everywhere possible to ensure the truth is found?

It is vital to remain neutral. Avoid "investigator bias" (deciding who is guilty before you've finished the work). In workplace investigations, you use the "Balance of Probabilities" standard.

The Standard of Proof: You do not need "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (like in a criminal court). You only need to determine if it is more likely than not that the event occurred.

Determination     -     What it means
Substantiated     -     The evidence shows it is more likely than not that the incident happened.
Unsubstantiated     -     The evidence shows it is more likely than not that the incident did not happen.
Unable to Substantiate     -     There is not enough evidence to lean either way.

The appeal hearing will follow a similar process to the disciplinary hearing. It must not consist of a re-hearing of the disciplinary hearing but must focus on the grounds of appeal as submitted by the employee. 

1. The appeal Hearing Officer will introduce all parties present, explain the purpose and order of the hearing, outline any expectations in relation to how the hearing is conducted, and ensure that all parties have the relevant documentation. 
2. The appeal Hearing Officer will be required to review the process and outcome of the original disciplinary hearing, the grounds of appeal presented and whether the original decision was considered reasonable and appropriate. 
3. If the colleague presents any new evidence, the appeal Hearing Officer will consider whether this is relevant to the appeal hearing, whether the evidence should be discounted, or whether a new disciplinary hearing is required to consider the new evidence. 
4. The Hearing Officer is required to be present at the appeal hearing to respond to explain the reasons for their decision at the original disciplinary hearing. 
5. The colleagues will outline their grounds for appeal, which will be responded to by the original disciplinary Hearing Officer. 
6. Following the presentation of all information, each party will be invited by the appeal Hearing Officer to make any final submission for consideration. The disciplinary Hearing Officer should be invited first, followed by the colleague (or their representative). No further new information should be presented at this stage. 
7. The appeal Hearing Officer will then follow steps 8-11 as set out in the disciplinary hearing process in Appendix 4. 
8. In cases where the appeal is simple, or purely related to a dispute over process that does not require an interview or discussion, a desktop review may be conducted by the Appeal Hearing Officer,

• To safeguard colleagues’ health and wellbeing by adjusting disciplinary processes to minimise risk of foreseeable serious physical or mental harm, including suicide.
• To reinforce culture of fairness and compassion.
• To prioritise colleagues’ wellbeing and natural justice in a form of a flexible and fair approach to each case. 
• To ensure swift resolution and fair outcomes of disciplinary cases where there is any risk of serious physical or mental harm. 
• As an additional safety mechanism to the support provided by the ER team is to allocate the case and a Duty Welfare Officer commissioned in complex cases or where welfare support would be beneficial.

• Concern for the health and welfare of colleagues who are subject to disciplinary procedures/investigations should be continually assessed. 
• Any concerns should be referred to the Investigating Officer and assigned to the case. 
• Occupational Health assessments will be arranged for everyone who either requests or is identified as requiring such support. 
• If there is any indication that a colleague who is subject to disciplinary investigation is or might be at risk of serious harm, these cases must trigger the ‘Risk of serious harm protocol.’

• Prompt notification of the Head of HR who will review and consider necessary action to reduce the risk of harm
• There is a range of actions which will be considered on case-by-case basis and include:

1. Investigation process can be halted / disciplinary hearing can be delayed for an appropriate period. where additional time is needed to access treatment, typically as support measure recommended by Occupational Health 
2. Further steps can be taken to gain a better understanding of the identified harm and its causes, for example through referral to Occupational Health. 
3. Appropriate steps can be agreed to address or minimise causes of risk of serious harm if these are linked with the colleague’s employment and/or disciplinary proceedings.

Investigating Officer, ER Adviser, Duty Welfare Officer 

• Establish terms of reference and communication plan for each investigation. 
• Communication plan will form an integral part of the terms of reference for each case. 
• The underlying principle should be that all communication, in whatever form it takes, is:

1. Timely 
2. Comprehensive 
3. Unambiguous 
4. Sensitive 
5. Compassionate 

• Take prompt action and notify the Head of HR.