01
Bring the facts together
Add the timeline, relevant records, policies and correspondence.
Prevention and fair process
Resolve
Prevent escalation. Handle live disputes.
Understand an emerging issue early, or bring structure and source-checked clarity to a live workplace matter.
Matter overview
Grievance and conduct review
Evidence coverage82%
Process clarity68%
Source confidence91%
PositionProcess risk identifiedNext reviewAfter evidence response
Illustrative employer matter · fictional data
From uncertainty to fair action
A disciplined way to understand the matter before deciding what to do.
02
Assess the position
Resolve organises the evidence and grounds legal points in official UK sources.
03
Check every point
Legal rules and document-based statements are checked on separate verification tracks.
04
Choose a proportionate path
See process risks, missing evidence, options and prioritised next steps.
Sample assessment
Sample assessment
HeartBrain Resolve
Northstar Services Ltd · Fictional employer matter
Explore
Advice Note
Case position · Contested
The organisation has started a formal process and preserved relevant records, but the investigation is not yet sufficiently independent to support a final decision.
Assessment reliability · Medium
The available emails, policy and meeting notes establish the sequence of events. Witness accounts and the employee's complete response are still required before findings can safely be reached.
What this means for you. A manager has raised concerns about repeated intimidating comments within a team. The immediate priority is to protect those involved, appoint an impartial investigator and avoid treating an allegation as a proven fact. No disciplinary outcome should be decided until the employee has seen the substance of the allegations and had a fair opportunity to respond.
Evidence
3 of 4 · Reasonable
Contemporaneous messages and meeting notes support parts of the chronology, but two material witnesses have not yet been interviewed.
Evidence
Facts behind this rating:
- Written concern received on 18 September
- Relevant team messages preserved
- Two witness interviews outstanding
Most useful action: Complete and document the outstanding interviews before reaching findings.[1]
The law
3 of 4 · Reasonable
The alleged conduct could engage the organisation's dignity-at-work policy and statutory harassment protections, depending on facts and context.
The law
Facts behind this rating:
- The allegation concerns repeated unwanted comments
- The protected-characteristic context remains disputed
Most useful action: Test each allegation against the policy and statutory elements separately.[2]
Process followed
2 of 4 · Needs work
The reporting manager has gathered evidence while also being closely involved in the events, creating a foreseeable impartiality concern.
Process followed
Facts behind this rating:
- The reporting manager conducted the first witness meeting
- No independent investigator has been appointed
Most useful action: Appoint an uninvolved investigator and confirm the written scope.[1]
Timing
3 of 4 · Reasonable
The organisation acknowledged the concern promptly and has time to complete a fair investigation without avoidable delay.
Timing
Facts behind this rating:
- Concern acknowledged the next working day
Most useful action: Issue a realistic investigation timetable to everyone involved.[1]
Urgent
- • Put proportionate interim arrangements in place without presenting them as disciplinary findings.[1]
- • Preserve relevant messages, meeting notes and rota records, with access restricted to the process team.[1]
Documents considered
- Dignity at Work PolicyPolicy · 08/01/2026
- Written concern and response emailsEmail chain · 18/09/2026
- Initial meeting notesMeeting record · 22/09/2026
Known facts
- • A written concern describing three incidents was received on 18 September 2026.[1]
- • The employee disputes the characterisation of the comments and has requested the full particulars.[1]
Assumptions and unknowns
- • No conclusion has been reached and every allegation remains to be tested.[1]
Risk of an unfair or partial workplace process
Contested- MetA formal workplace concern exists. The written complaint identifies dates, words alleged and people said to have been present.[1]
- UnclearThe evidence establishes misconduct. Accounts conflict and important witnesses have not yet been interviewed.[1][2]
- Not metA fair final decision can be made now. The investigation is incomplete and its present independence could reasonably be challenged.[1][3]
The other side will say…
• The employee may say the process was shaped by a manager who was personally involved and that relevant context was omitted.[1]
Things that would make this worse
• Predetermining the outcome or widening confidentiality unnecessarily would increase procedural and relationship risk.[1][3]
What helps
- • The organisation acknowledged the concern promptly and preserved relevant written records.[1]
What hurts
- • The same manager has acted as witness, evidence-gatherer and proposed decision-maker.[1]
What is missing
- • Signed accounts from the two people identified as present during the disputed conversations.[1]
- • The employee's complete written response to each allegation.[1]
Procedure to follow, step by step
- • Define the allegations and investigation scope, appoint an impartial investigator, gather relevant evidence, give the employee a fair opportunity to respond, then separate findings from any later disciplinary decision.[1][3]
Options and trade-offs
- • Option 1: Complete a formal independent investigation before deciding whether there is a disciplinary case to answer.[1]
- • Option 2: If facts support it and all parties freely agree, consider facilitated workplace resolution alongside any necessary formal process.[1]
Deadlines
- • Set and communicate a prompt, realistic timetable. Explain any material delay rather than allowing the process to drift.[1]
Prioritised next steps
- • Appoint an investigator who has had no material involvement in the allegations.[1]
- • Send the employee a neutral written summary of each allegation and invite a response.[1]
- • Review interim safeguards weekly for necessity and proportionality.[1]
Questions that could change this view
- • Who can investigate without prior involvement or reporting-line conflict?
- • Which records can corroborate timing and context without collecting irrelevant personal information?
Sources
Every point was checked against its source. Strength is an estimate, never a promise.
HeartBrain Resolve provides dispute analysis and procedural guidance based on UK employment law and your documents. It is not legal advice from a solicitor, and using it does not create a solicitor-client relationship. For formal representation, contact Acas or one of our vetted partner solicitors.
When professional advice is needed
Move from analysis to legal advice without starting again.
Your organisation can share a completed assessment inside HeartBrain with a partner employment lawyer. They receive a frozen copy of the exact report your team sees, so the facts, documents and analysis do not need to be gathered again. You stay in control and can remove access at any time.
Resolve provides dispute analysis and legal information, not regulated legal advice.
Share inside HeartBrain
Send the completed report to a HeartBrain partner employment lawyer without another upload.
A frozen, exact copy
The lawyer receives the assessment as it existed when your organisation shared it.
Your organisation stays in control
Remove access whenever you choose.
Clear boundaries
Detailed information without pretending to replace a solicitor.
When regulated advice is needed, your organisation can share a frozen copy of the assessment with a HeartBrain partner employment lawyer inside the app.
Official UK sources support legal statements.
Uploaded records support document-based statements.
Unsupported points are removed before the report reaches the customer.
Resolve provides dispute analysis and legal information, not regulated legal advice.
See how Resolve fits your organisation.
HR, People and Legal teams can evaluate Resolve with one organisational matter, three updates and ten questions.
Organisation Evaluation Pilot
Evaluate Resolve with one real organisational matter.
For HR, People and Legal teams considering Resolve as a standalone service or within HeartBrain Total.
- One organisational matter
- Three report updates
- Ten source-checked questions
- No card and no fixed time limit