Templates
Interview and statement templates
Complainant, respondent and witness interview templates with question sets, plus witness statement forms and interview note formats built to hold up under scrutiny.
Interview notes are evidence. They get produced in litigation, quoted back to the investigator, and compared against what the witness later says they said. Notes written as loose paraphrase create problems that careful notes never would.
These templates cover the three interview types — complainant, respondent, witness — with the structural differences that matter between them, plus the notices and admonitions that belong at the top of an interview and the statement forms that close it out.
5 templates in this section
Complainant Interview Questions & Template
A complainant interview template with opening script, question sequence and note format — structured to itemize allegations rather than collect a narrative.
Template + worked example + .docx
Investigation Interview Questions for the Accused Employee
A respondent interview template covering notice, the right to respond to each allegation, and the questioning sequence that makes a finding defensible.
Template + worked example + .docx
Witness Interview Questions & Template
A witness interview template with an opening script, non-leading question structure, and a record of what the witness could and could not speak to.
Template + worked example + .docx
Witness Statement Template for Workplace Investigations
A witness statement template in first person, with a truth declaration and signature block — the finished record of what a witness says they observed.
Template + worked example + .docx
Workplace Investigation Interview Questions by Allegation Type
Investigation interview questions grouped by allegation type — harassment, discrimination, retaliation, bullying — plus the sequencing logic behind them.
Template + worked example + .docx
What actually differs between the three interviews
The complainant interview is the one that sets scope. You are establishing what is being alleged, in enough specificity that each allegation can be put to someone and answered — dates, locations, words used, who else was present. An account that stays general at this stage produces an investigation that cannot reach a finding, because there is nothing precise enough to test.
The respondent interview is the one with the most structure imposed on it, because fairness is doing work there. The allegations have to be put specifically enough to be answered, the respondent has to have a real opportunity to answer them, and any new matter that emerges has to be put as well rather than absorbed silently into the analysis.
The witness interview is the narrowest. A witness is there for what they perceived, not for their view of the parties. The discipline is to keep pulling the account back to observation — what they saw, when, from where — and to record their characterizations as characterizations rather than as fact.
If you want the questions themselves rather than the interview structure, the question sets by allegation type are separate, because the questions that establish a retaliation claim and the questions that establish a bullying claim have almost nothing in common.
Notes are evidence, and they are read adversarially
Interview notes get produced, quoted back, and compared against what the witness later says they said. That reality should shape how they are written, not just how they are stored.
Three habits carry most of the benefit. Quote verbatim on the sentences that matter and mark them as quotes, rather than paraphrasing an admission into your own words. Attribute everything to its source, so the account never floats free of the person who gave it. And keep your own observations physically separate from the account — a note that reads "seemed evasive" sitting inline among quotations will be read as though the witness said it.
When a signed statement adds something — and when it does not
A witness statement in the witness's own words, reviewed and signed, is worth having when the account is central and the witness may later be unavailable or may shift. What it adds is the witness's adoption of the account: they have read it and confirmed it is theirs.
It does not make the account true, and it is not a substitute for the interview. A statement drafted by the investigator and signed without meaningful review is weaker than good notes, because it invites the argument that the words are yours rather than the witness's. If you use one, let them change it, and record that they were given the chance.