HR Case and Grievance Intake Routing
An employee relations concern — a harassment complaint, a conflict with a manager, a policy violation report — often gets raised informally to whichever HR contact the employee happens to know, and depending on who that is and whether they're equipped to handle that category of case, it can sit for days before reaching someone who actually knows the correct process. Cases involving a manager who has any reporting relationship to the person who received the complaint create an obvious conflict of interest if that person ends up investigating, and without a structured intake process actively checking for that, it's easy for a case to be handled by exactly the wrong person without anyone flagging the conflict.
STARTING PRICE
From €299
Standard tier · Multi-step workflow with AI extraction/decisioning and 2-3 integrations.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 2-4 hrs per case for HR, plus a materially stronger, more defensible investigation record.
How the automation works
We give employee relations concerns a structured intake path and route each case immediately, by category, to a qualified investigator with no reporting-line or personal conflict of interest to either party involved — checked explicitly, not assumed — rather than defaulting to whichever HR contact the employee happened to reach first. Every stage of the case, from intake through investigation through resolution, is timestamped and logged, creating a defensible record of process without requiring the investigator to manually maintain a separate case log alongside the actual investigation work. Cases sitting without a documented next step for longer than the policy's expected timeline are flagged for HR leadership review, so a case doesn't go quiet simply because the assigned investigator is buried in other work.
Process flow
- 01
Case reported through structured channel trigger
An employee relations concern enters a structured intake path with a defined case category, rather than depending on reaching the right HR contact informally.
- 02
Check for conflict of interest ai
Before assignment, the case is checked against reporting-line and known personal relationships to rule out an investigator with a conflict of interest to either party involved, rather than assuming the first available HR contact is appropriate.
- 03
Route to a qualified, conflict-free investigator output
The case routes to an investigator qualified for that specific case category and confirmed free of conflict, rather than to whichever HR contact happened to receive the initial report.
- 04
Timestamp and log each stage output
Every stage from intake through investigation through resolution is automatically timestamped and logged, building a defensible process record without the investigator needing to separately maintain one by hand.
- 05
Flag stalled cases ai
A case with no documented next step for longer than the policy's expected timeline is flagged for HR leadership review, so a case doesn't go quiet simply because the assigned investigator's workload got in the way.
Inputs
- Employee relations case report and category
- Organizational reporting-line and known relationship data
- Investigator qualifications by case category
- Case stage timeline policy
Outputs
- Structured, categorized case intake record
- Conflict-checked investigator assignment
- Timestamped case stage log
- Stalled-case escalation flags
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- A case routed to whichever HR contact the employee happened to reach, rather than through a structured intake process, can land with someone who isn't actually equipped to handle that specific case category, or worse, who has a reporting-line relationship to one of the people involved that should have excluded them from the case entirely.
- Assuming there's no conflict of interest rather than explicitly checking reporting lines and known relationships before assignment is how a case ends up investigated by someone with a real or perceived stake in the outcome, which undermines the investigation's credibility even if the actual findings would have been the same.
- A case log maintained only in the investigator's personal notes, rather than a structured, timestamped system record, produces a weak documentation trail if the case is ever challenged or reviewed later — the process record needs to exist independent of any one person's notes and memory.
- Without active monitoring for stalled cases, an investigator managing multiple open cases alongside other HR responsibilities can let one quietly sit without a next step for far longer than policy allows, and the employee who raised the original concern experiences that silence as the company simply not addressing it.
Frequently asked questions
How does this prevent a case from being investigated by someone with a conflict of interest?
Before assignment, the case is explicitly checked against reporting-line and known personal relationships to both parties involved, rather than assuming the first available HR contact is appropriate to investigate.
Does the employee who raised the concern know their case is being worked on?
Case stages are timestamped and tracked, and a stalled case with no documented next step for longer than the expected timeline is flagged for leadership review, keeping cases from silently going quiet.
Does this replace the investigator's actual judgment during the case?
No — routing, conflict-checking and stage tracking are structural; the investigation itself, including all findings and decisions, remains entirely the qualified investigator's responsibility.
Is the documentation trail useful if a case is later challenged?
Yes, every stage from intake through resolution is timestamped and logged automatically, producing a defensible process record independent of any one person's personal notes.