Breaking the Cycle: Managing Cross-Complaints and Vexatious Claims

Few scenarios test HR and investigators more than the “complaint cycle”—where Employee A alleges bullying by Employee B, Employee B counters with cross claims of misconduct by Employee A, and the loop of accusations, threats of victimisation, and emotional escalation spins around-and-around endlessly.

These complaint cycles often drain resources, erode trust, prolong investigations and associated impacts (such as participant stress) and can even risk legal pitfalls.

Drawing from real-world practice and best practice guidelines like those from WorkSafe Queensland and the Australian Human Rights Commission, here is a short guide on how to effectively navigate complex complaint cycles with structure and fairness.

Employee A alleges bullying by Employee B. HR runs an investigation and finds the bullying allegation unsubstantiated but identifies communication issues on both sides. Within weeks, B files a counter‑complaint alleging that A’s original complaint was malicious and that A is now excluding them from meetings. The cycle continues: A then alleges victimisation because B complained about them. Without a clear strategy, HR is stuck in a permanent triage cycle.

Calling a complaint “vexatious” is an extraordinary step and should never be shorthand for “we couldn’t substantiate it”.

Key distinctions:

• Unsubstantiated: There is insufficient evidence to support the allegation, but the complaint may still have been made in good faith.
• Vexatious or malicious: The complainant knew (or should have known) that the allegation was false, or they misused the complaint process. In practice, it can be very difficult to get to the bottom of whether a complaint has been made genuinely or is fundamentally vexatious or malicious. It can help in these scenarios to revisit the definition and core elements of a ‘vexatious claim’, which generally includes a complaint or claim made:
  • without reasonable grounds; and
  • conducted in a way to harass or annoy, cause delay or detriment, or achieve another wrongful purpose.

Below we have listed a few practical tips that might assist in the exercise of distinguishing genuine complaints from vexatious complaints:

• Anchor in policy definitions: Ensure your grievance, bullying/harassment, and complaint procedures clearly define “frivolous”, “vexatious”, and “malicious”, and explain potential consequences.
• Investigate first, label later: Properly investigate the substance of the complaint before you turn to whether the manner of complaining has been vexatious.
• Use a two‑step, staged approach: If you suspect vexatious conduct after an investigation, initiate a separate, procedurally fair process to put that allegation to the complainant and give them a right to properly respond to the allegation.

After a full investigation into Employee A’s bullying complaint, you find that no bullying occurred, but you do identify reciprocal interpersonal conflict. You do not automatically label Employee A’s complaint as vexatious. Instead, you document the findings and implement conflict management measures. Only if you later see a pattern of recurring complaints (for example, Employee A repeatedly makes similar serious allegations against the same or different colleagues that prove to be baseless) do you consider a separate process to assess whether their conduct has become vexatious.

In the throws of managing a complex complaint cycle, it can be tempting to over-focus on personality traits (for example, Employee A is ‘overly sensitive’ or Employee B ‘communicates too abruptly’) or to label one party as “the root of the problem” in trying to rationalise the situation. This is where bias creeps in and you risk undermining the entire complaint management and investigation process. The key to sidestepping bias-creep is to anchor yourself in process.

Over six months, both Employee A and Employee B lodge multiple cross complaints about each other’s workplace conduct – everything from “microaggressions” to “withholding information”. You adopt a structured triage template that you apply to every new complaint, recording whether it raises new issues or simply repeats matters already investigated. This helps you step away from the personalities involved and focus on risk, proportionality, and fairness.

Below is a sample process map for standardising your response to complaints.

Effective risk management systems protect genuine complainants from victimisation while still managing unreasonable conduct and misuse of complaint pathways and investigation processes.

Employers can balance these competing rights and responsibilities by:

• Using explicit and consistent non‑reprisal messaging: Advise all parties that they must not treat someone unfavourably because they made or participated in a complaint, and that this includes subtle behaviours such as exclusion or gossip, and that breaches may result in disciplinary action including termination.
• Giving behaviour‑focused and specific directions: Instead of making it about “who’s right”, issue clear instructions about required behaviour (e.g., professional communication only via agreed channels, no unauthorised contact, no discussing the matter with colleagues).
• Setting clear boundaries for recurring complaints of unreasonable conduct: Policies can allow you to limit the frequency and mode of contact, decline to re‑examine already‑determined issues, or appoint a single point of contact for a complainant whose conduct has become unreasonable—provided you communicate this in writing and allow them to respond.

After closing a bullying investigation involving Employee A and Employee B, you write to both parties to communicate outcomes and reset expectations. You reiterate that retaliation, gossip, or “trying to get the other person back” through further complaints will be treated as a misconduct issue, not a continuation of the original matter. At the same time, you clarify that if new, serious and genuine concerns arise, they can still raise them through appropriate channels.

Repeated investigation of every new allegation raised as part of an ongoing complaints cycle can have the undesired effect of further entrenching the conflict. At some point, the problem stops being “who did what on a specific date” and becomes “this relationship is dysfunctional and affecting safety, productivity, and culture”.

Some tools and techniques you can employ to identify complaint patterns and figure out where to draw a line in the sand include:

After three rounds of cross‑complaints with largely unsubstantiated findings, a complaints pattern review shows a repetitive theme of abrupt email tone, perceived exclusion, and blurred role boundaries. You decide that another formal investigation is unlikely to shift these underlying issues. Instead, you arrange for a structured mediation or facilitated discussion, refresh position descriptions and reset team wide communication protocols. Both employees are advised that a failure to comply with these expectations may lead to management or disciplinary action.

High‑conflict complaint cycles are not just about two difficult employees; they also test the integrity and robustness of complaint management systems and processes and may be a symptom of deeper issues.

Employers can strengthen complaint management systems by:

• Building clear complaint pathways and standards: Good practice guidelines emphasise clarity about how to complain, what support is available, how matters will be handled, and what happens if a complaint is found to be vexatious or malicious.
• Training leaders and investigators: Equip them to distinguish good‑faith complaints from vexatious or malicious complaints, manage their own emotional responses, and avoid use of labels like “vexatious” or “malicious” in communications with staff.
• Creating decision‑making support: Use peer review, legal advice, or other escalation pathways when considering whether to treat conduct as vexatious or impose contact directions or limitations.
• Monitoring for chilling effects: Watch for drops in reporting of misconduct or feedback from staff that “there’s no point complaining” after a vexatious finding and respond with communication and reassurance about fair treatment in complaint handling processes.

After issuing written boundaries to a recurring complainant, you notice a significant decline in team‑wide reporting of low‑level issues. You respond by reminding staff of the organisation’s commitment to safe reporting, explaining (without naming individuals) how the business distinguishes between genuine complaints and potential misconduct, reinforcing that you have zero tolerance for retaliatory conduct against persons who raise issues in good faith.

For more information or support managing complex complaint cycles, please reach out to our expert team below.