Workplace Investigations

There is no specific law governing workplace investigations in Brazil, but Law 14.457/2022 states that companies must have rules that relate to sexual and other forms of harassment in their internal policies, address the rules for receiving and processing accusations, assess the facts, and discipline any individuals directly and indirectly involved in acts of sexual harassment or violence.

If the investigation has any connection with anticorruption matters, the investigation procedure must comply with Law 12846/2013 (Brazilian Anticorruption Act) and Decree 8420/2015.

As a result, Brazilian employers usually follow the rules determined by internal corporate policies, which often result from international regulations and principles that differ from the Brazilian ones, which inadvertently expose the Brazilian subsidiary to liability. The answers below will highlight common examples of this, when appropriate.

Mainly, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (738/2002). In addition, the following also have relevance in connection to a workplace investigation: the Employment Contracts Act (55/2001), the Criminal Code (39/1889), the Act on Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement and Cooperation on Occupational Safety and Health at Workplaces (44/2006), the Act on Equality between Women and Men (609/1986) and the Non-discrimination Act (1325/2014). In addition, the employer's own policies must be taken into consideration while conducting a workplace investigation.

A workplace investigation is usually governed by the employer’s internal grievance policy or contractual guidelines found in the employment contract or employee handbook. In the absence of the same, the default governing regime is as set out by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) in its guidelines and advisories, which include:

• the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment;
• the TAFEP Grievance Handling Handbook; and
• the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices.

In addition, section 14(1) of the Employment Act 1968 provides that an employer is required to conduct “due inquiry” before dismissing an employee covered under the Employment Act 1968 without notice for misconduct. The Singapore Courts take the view that “due inquiry” suggests some sort of process in which the employee concerned is informed about the allegations and the evidence against him or her so that he or she has an opportunity to defend him or herself with or without evidence during the investigation process.

Further, there are numerous cases where the Singapore High Court has alluded to or implicitly accepted the application of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in employment contracts that would oblige the employer to act reasonably and fairly during the investigation, even though it is worth noting that the Singapore Court of Appeal has stated that the status of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence has not been settled in Singapore and that the Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court has stated that “[i]t remains an open question for the Court of Appeal to resolve in a more appropriate case, ideally with facts capable of bearing out a claim based directly on the existence of the implied term” (see [81]-[82] of Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another [2022] SGHC(A) 8).

Hence, any references to the application of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in Singapore in this article must be read in light of the above.

The current position is expected to change in the second half of 2024, with the passing of Singapore’s first workplace fairness law, the Workplace Fairness Legislation. On 4 August 2023, the Singapore government announced that it has accepted the final set of recommendations by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness in respect of the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness recommended, among other things, that employers are required to put grievance-handling processes in place. It is therefore expected that the Workplace Fairness Legislation may contain requirements on how and when a workplace investigation should be conducted.

This article sets out the current position, before the Workplace Fairness Legislation was enacted, and will be updated when appropriate.

Workplace investigations usually commence on the receipt of an allegation, which can be presented orally or in writing to an assigned member of the company (usually, within the HR, Compliance or Legal Departments, or to a direct supervisor) or via an external channel, as determined by the company’s policy.

When the employer becomes aware of possible misconduct, the employer must commence an investigation immediately, in practice within about two weeks. The information may come to the employer's knowledge via, for example, the employer's own observations, from the complainant or their colleagues or an employee representative.

A workplace investigation usually commences with the receipt of feedback, a complaint or a grievance, by named or anonymous persons, in respect of a work-related matter or event, or the conduct of an employee.

Yes, an employee can be suspended during or before a workplace investigation. However, suspending an employee is not a legal requirement in Brazil. It is also not standard business practice and entails legal risk, as detailed below.

While internal policies in line with a company’s global investigation approach may determine whether investigated employees are suspended during an investigation, the suspension of an accused employee is not recommended. The only exception is when the accused employee, upon becoming aware of the existence of the investigation, poses a clear and imminent risk of physical danger to other employees or interfering with the investigation.

The suspension of an employee during an investigation makes it difficult for the company to keep the investigation confidential, because the absence of the investigated employee will have to be explained to his or her colleagues and business contacts. As a result, the investigated employee may be exposed to the stigma of being associated with potential misconduct.

Even if the accusation is confirmed and the individual is terminated with cause, the employer cannot disclose the reason for the termination or that the contract was terminated for a cause or violation in the employee’s employment records. Also, if the employer shares such information with prospective employers they may be liable for damages.

Termination for cause on the grounds of dishonest conduct, if not upheld by the labour court, usually leads to liability for damages to the former employee due to the accusation and the stigma associated with it. 

Therefore, if the company decides to suspend the employee during the investigation and terminate his or her employment at the end of the investigation, the suspension will be associated with wrongdoing, and the individual will have grounds to claim damages for the association between the termination, the investigation and wrongdoing, which will likely be presumed by a labour court (damage in re ipsa).

On the other hand, if the accusation is deemed groundless, the connection between the employee and potential wrongdoing resulting from his or her suspension can be used as grounds for damages because of the resulting environment at the workplace or the development of mental health conditions such as depression or anxiety by the investigated employee due to the investigation and uncertainty about the negative effect of it on his or her reputation. 

Because suspension during an investigation is not a disciplinary measure, if the company decides to suspend, the employee’s salary cannot be affected. Also, the suspension period must be as short as possible, and can in no circumstance be longer than 30 days. If it exceeds 30 days, it would trigger termination for cause by the company, which increases the amount of statutory severance due to the employee.

There is no legislation on temporary suspension in the event of a workplace investigation or similar. In some situations, the employer may relieve the employee from their working obligation with pay for a short period.

Yes. Section 14(1) read with 14(8) of the Employment Act 1968 provides that an employee can be suspended during a workplace investigation

However, pursuant to section 14(8) of the Employment Act 1968, the employer:

• may suspend the employee from work for:
  • a period not exceeding one week; or
  • such longer period as the Commissioner for Labour may determine on an application by the employer; but
• must pay the employee at least half the employee’s salary during the period the employee is suspended from work.

Section 14(9) of the Employment Act 1968 further states that if the inquiry does not disclose any misconduct on the employee’s part, the employer must immediately restore to the employee the full amount of the withheld salary.

In addition to the above legislative requirements, the company is required to also comply with its policies relating to such suspensions.

In terms of the threshold to be crossed before a suspension can take place, the Singapore Courts have highlighted that suspending an employee quickly as part of a “knee-jerk” reaction to an unclear or unspecific allegation with dubious credibility is arguably a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence that exists in all employment relationships ([56] of Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another [2021] SGHC 123). The employer would need to have proper and reasonable cause to suspend an employee for disciplinary purposes ([56(d)] of Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem Technology Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 577; [2013] SGHC 32), for example, where multiple credible sources claimed that they had been sexually harassed by an employee, and the employer had strong grounds to believe that if the employee was not suspended, the safety and wellbeing of the other employees in the organisation would be threatened.

In contrast, an employer is not entitled to suspend an employee during a workplace investigation where the employer has only received one complaint that has not been properly described or substantiated with sufficient details from an unverified or unreliable source against an employee who has a good track record with the organisation. This is especially so if the complaint is so unclear that further inquiries should be made before the allegation can be properly ascertained and characterised (see also [51] of Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another [2021] SGHC 123).

There is no statutory rule, and therefore the investigator can be chosen by the company.

In sensitive matters, it is recommended that attorneys undertake the investigation due to legal privilege. Engaging external lawyers increases the confidence of witnesses and parties in the independence and lack of bias of the investigation process, especially when the allegations involve senior employees.

Additionally, attorneys are trained to collect information based on legal thresholds that apply to the allegations, allowing the decision-makers to understand the events as they would be posed before a labour judge or a prosecutor, and enabling them to clearly assess the legal risk involved in the situation.

The employer must conduct the investigation, but the actual work can be done either by the employer's personnel or by an external investigator, for example, a law firm. Either way, there are no formal criteria for the persons executing the investigation; however, impartiality is required from the person conducting the investigation

While there are no prescribed minimum qualifications or criteria that need to be met for any person conducting a workplace investigation, the person handling employee grievances should be someone who:

• has been authorised and empowered to do so by the employer;
• is not in a position of actual or potential conflict; and
• is independent and impartial.

The grievance handler should be familiar with the organisation’s investigative procedure, have attended the relevant training to ensure full compliance with the same; and have a good understanding of the expectations and norms set out by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices.

Employees are not legally prohibited from bringing legal action, but because investigations are within an employer’s powers, a legal action to broadly stop an investigation (as opposed to an injunction to prevent a limited measure within an investigation, such as the review of private messages) would likely be deemed groundless.

The employee does not have a legal right to stop the investigation. The employer must fulfil its obligation to investigate the alleged misconduct.

The employee under investigation is entitled to apply to the Court to stop the investigation. However, the employee bears the legal burden of showing that the employer has, for instance:

1. failed to comply with the organisation’s grievance policy;
2. committed a serious breach of natural justice; and/or
3. breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence when investigating the matter, and that such a breach will, unless remedied, cause such prejudice to the employee that it would be more just for the investigation to be stopped than to be allowed to continue.

Employees cannot be compelled to act as witnesses. Employers may have trouble enforcing internal policies stating that employees who refuse to participate in investigations will be disciplined (warned, suspended or have their contract terminated for cause), but can terminate their contract without cause.

There are no explicit legal protections for employees acting as witnesses, but it is common best practice to have witnesses’ identities protected to the extent necessary for the investigation, and to protect them from retaliation.

There is no legislation on a witness's role in investigations. However, the legislation on occupational safety requires that employees must report any irregularities they observe. Depending on the situation, participating in the investigation may also be part of the person's work duties, role or position, in which case the employer may require the employee to contribute to clarifying the situation. However, there is no formal obligation to act as a witness, and there is no legislation regarding the protection of witnesses. If a witness wishes, they may have, for example, an employee representative as a support person during the hearing. 

Singapore law does not impose any statutory or legal obligation on an employee to act as a witness in the investigation. Accordingly, an employer does not have the power to compel its employees to act as witnesses in an investigation.

Notwithstanding this, an employer may require an employee to assist in investigations pursuant to specific contractual obligations in the employee’s terms of employment (as may be contained in the employment contract, employee handbook or the employer’s internal policies and procedures in dealing with the investigations, etc). Further, a request for an employee to provide evidence of an event that he or she knows of may reasonably be deemed to be a lawful and reasonable directive from an employer.

Consequently, an employee’s refusal to act as a witness may amount to an act of insubordination that may attract disciplinary action by the employer.

Employers requiring employees to act as witnesses in an investigation must ensure that they comply with the expectations and norms set out by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices and the TAFEP Grievance Handling Handbook.

The Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD) does not have specific rules or principles that apply to internal investigations conducted within private organisations. Despite that, the general principles and obligations set forth by the LGPD apply to any processing of personal data carried out within the context of such investigations. As a result, the company must ensure the transparency of such processing activities through a privacy notice addressed to the data subjects; only process the personal data that is necessary for the investigation; define the lawful basis that applies to such processing activities (especially for sensitive data); and apply any other obligations established by the LGPD.

Generally, the basic principles set out by the GDPR and the Finnish Data Protection Act apply to data processing in connection with investigations, including evidence gathering: there must be a legal basis for processing, personal data may only be processed and stored when and for as long as necessary considering the purposes of processing, etc.

Additionally, if physical evidence concerns the electronic communications (such as emails and online chats) of an employee, gathering evidence is subject to certain restrictions based on Finnish ePrivacy and employee privacy laws. As a general rule, an employee’s electronic communications accounts, including those provided by the employer for work purposes, may not be accessed and electronic communications may not be searched or reviewed by the employer. In practice, the employer may access such electronic correspondence only in limited situations stipulated in the Act on Protection of Privacy in Working Life (759/2004), or by obtaining case-specific consent from the employee, which is typically not possible in internal investigations, particularly concerning the employee suspected of wrongdoing.

However, monitoring data flow strictly between the employee and the employer's information systems (eg, the employee saving data to USB sticks, using printers) is allowed under Finnish legislation, provided that employee emails, chats, etc, are not accessed and monitored. If documentation is unrelated to electronic communications, it also may be reviewed by the employer. Laptops, paper archives and other similar company documentation considered "physical evidence" may be investigated while gathering evidence on the condition that any private documentation, communications, pictures or other content of an employee are not accessed.

The employer may collect the personal data of an individual without the individual’s consent or from a source other than the individual, where it is necessary for any investigation according to section 17(1) read with paragraph 4 of Part 3 of the Third Schedule of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA). Under section 2(1) of the PDPA, “investigation” means an investigation relating to:

• a breach of an agreement;
• a contravention of any written law, or any rule of professional conduct or other requirement imposed by any regulatory authority in the exercise of its powers under any written law; or
• a circumstance or conduct that may result in a remedy or relief being available under any law.

Under the Banking Act 1970, a bank and its officers cannot disclose customer information to third parties, subject to certain exceptions. An employer carrying out a workplace investigation does not fall within any of the exceptions.

No; employers are only generally allowed to search the work tools they provide to employees, such as company mobile phones, electronic files, and company email and other electronic communications. However, they may also request that employees turn over any company documents in their possession.

Searches of employees’ private possessions or files during an investigation can only occur with the verifiable consent of the employee.   

Only the police can search employees' possessions (assuming that the prerequisites outlined in the legislation are met).

The employer is not allowed to search employees’ personal possessions or files as part of an investigation without the employee’s consent. However, such consent may be explicitly provided for in the terms of employment (as may be contained in the employment contract, employee handbook or the employer’s internal policies and procedures in dealing with the investigations, etc). The employer may, however, search the employees’ company email accounts and files if these are stored on the company’s internal systems or devices.

If the investigation involves matters within the scope of a specific whistleblowing policy, the policy rules should prevail against the general investigation rules if there is a conflict.

In respect of data protection, the processing of personal data in whistleblowing systems is considered by the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman (DPO) as requiring a data protection impact assessment (DPIA).

Under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 and the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (CDSCA), in any civil or criminal proceeding, no witness is obliged to disclose the name or address of any informer, or disclose any information that might lead to his or her discovery concerning offences such as corruption, drug trafficking, and money laundering, save where:

• in any proceeding for the offence, the Court, after a full inquiry into the case, is of the opinion that the informer wilfully made, in his complaint, a material statement that he knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true; or
• in any other proceeding, the court is of the opinion that justice cannot be fully done between the parties without the discovery of the informer.

In line with the above, employers should therefore keep the informer’s identity confidential upon receiving a complaint relating to corruption, drug trafficking, money laundering, and other serious offences prescribed in the second schedule of the CDSCA.

Law 14.457/2022 states that companies must guarantee the anonymity of accusers. As a result, it is best practice that companies allow for anonymous submissions, or allow accusers to voluntarily disclose their identity while acknowledging that they agree that it will be kept confidential to the extent required by the investigation.

Also, companies should have internal rules stating that all parties involved in an investigation (accusing party, accused party, witnesses, investigators, and any other person that has any contact with the investigation) must keep the existence of the investigation and of the events related to the investigation confidential to the extent required by the investigation, and discipline any individuals that violate this.

Concerning a workplace investigation, there is no specific legislation in force at the moment regarding confidentiality obligations. All normal legal confidentiality obligations (eg, obligations outlined in the Trade Secrets Act (595/2018)), and if using an external investigator, the confidentiality obligations outlined in the agreement between the employer and the external investigator, apply. Attorneys-at-law always have strict confidentiality obligations as per the Advocates Act (496/1958).

The existence and scope of any confidentiality obligations would generally depend on the specific terms of the employment contract, employee handbook or the employer’s internal policies and procedures in dealing with the investigations.

In the context of investigations into workplace harassment issues, the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment issued by the MOM provides that the identities of the alleged harasser, affected persons and the informant should be protected unless the employer assesses that disclosure is necessary for safety reasons.

This may change with the enactment of the Workplace Fairness Legislation referred to in question 1. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness recommended, among other things, that employers should protect the confidentiality of the identity of persons who report workplace discrimination and harassment, where possible. As such, it is expected that the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation may impose certain confidentiality obligations on an employer during an investigation.

There is no obligation to inform an employee under investigation that this is the case, and it should not happen automatically.

While some policies require that the investigated employee be informed about the allegations against them at the beginning of the investigation, from a local perspective it is recommended that the accused employee be notified about the existence of the allegations if, after a reasonable review, there are elements that suggest that the accusation may be material.

In this context, the employee should be informed about the accusation and be allowed to confirm, deny, provide further context or justify each reported or identified event; offer evidence; and indicate persons or sources of information that could corroborate his or her defence. Information about the accusation must be focused on facts rather than on how the company obtained the information.

If the accusation is found to be groundless after initial review, involving the accused employee at the beginning of the process may have triggered unjust and unnecessary stress and a disruption in the employment relationship that may not be satisfactorily repaired by a determination that the accusation was void. This may result in a legal liability for the company or HR issues that could otherwise have been avoided.

The process must be transparent and impartial, and therefore all the information that may influence the conclusions made during the investigation should be shared with the employee.

There is no specific list of information about the allegations against the employee under investigation that must be provided to the employee under investigation. However, the information provided to the employee must be sufficiently clear and specific so that the employee understands the case being made against him or her and can respond to it. The employee should also be made aware of the evidence against him or her and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Yes, the identity of the complainant, witnesses and sources of information for the investigation should be kept confidential.

See question 11, there is no protection of anonymity as the process must be transparent to the parties involved.

Such information can be kept confidential, subject to questions 10 and 11. However, disclosure may nevertheless be compelled in court or arbitration proceedings as well as by disclosure requests or directions by the police or statutory authorities, including the MOM.

Yes, NDAs may be executed to reinforce the confidentiality obligations outlined in the company's policies and reinforced in interviews.

Yes, however, the need for an NDA is assessed always on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, NDAs can be used to keep the fact and substance of an investigation confidential. There are no express prohibitions against such NDAs under Singapore law. However, information or evidence covered by the NDA may still be discoverable in court or arbitration proceedings; and may also be subject to disclosure requests or directions by the police or statutory authorities, including the MOM.   

Privilege attaches to investigation materials when attorneys conduct interviews and take notes, and when they write reports and recommendations.

However, if other persons participate in an interview or write a report, and they are not attorneys, they can be required to testify about what they witnessed while participating in the interview or to discuss or disclose their investigation report.

For this reason, when starting an investigation, and depending on the matters to be investigated, it is important to determine whether it is convenient to allocate lawyers to certain roles to increase the company’s control of corporate confidentiality resulting from third-party involvement in the investigation.

Attorneys should also clearly state to participants of the investigation that they are attorneys representing the company and that their work papers fall under attorney-client privilege and will not be shared with them.

The privilege of investigation materials concerns a rather limited amount of cases. In practice, materials may be considered privileged in connection with the litigation process under the Procedural Code (4/1734). For example, communications between a client and an attorney may attract protection against forcible public disclosure.

Litigation privilege may attach to investigation materials if there was a reasonable prospect of litigation at the time of the creation of the materials, and the materials were created for the dominant purpose of a pending or contemplated litigation.

Legal advice privilege may attach to investigation materials if the materials were created to seek or obtain legal advice; or if the materials contain legal advice that is so embedded or has become such an integral part of the materials that the legal advice cannot be redacted from them. If the legal advice is separable from the materials, then only the parts of the materials containing legal advice will be protected by privilege.

Legally, a minor or someone with limited mental capacity must be represented by his or her parents or legal guardian in a meeting at work. Besides that, employers are not legally required to allow any external person to accompany employees during investigations, since these are internal proceedings and, generally, employee participation should be voluntary and not subject to retaliation, including if the employee refuses to participate.

The employee under investigation has a right to have a support person present (eg, a lawyer or an employee representative) during the hearings and a right to assistance in preparing written statements.

This is dependent on the employee’s employment contract and the employer’s internal grievance policies and investigative processes. There is no free-standing legal entitlement for an employee to have legal representation. Employers may, at their discretion, consider allowing an employee to bring a colleague or to have legal representation if such a request is reasonable, such as to provide emotional support to the employee who may view the disciplinary hearing as an unnerving and stressful experience or so that the employee may be advised and informed of his or her legal rights in respect of the investigation commenced against him or her.

No, there is no such right.

A works council or a trade union does not have a role in the investigation.

An employee who is a member of a works council or trade union has the right to seek assistance from the works council or trade union representative (whichever is applicable) and have the works council or trade union involved in resolving the grievances.

For unionised companies, the grievance procedure and the role of the union representative are usually set out in the collective agreement entered into between the company and the works council or trade union. In some organisations, the employee handbook or grievance policy will also state when the trade union representative will be involved in the investigation process.

It is highly recommended that investigation interviews are conducted in the interviewed person’s native language, even if the individual speaks the language used for business within the company, to ensure that there is no miscommunication or loss of accuracy in the determination of the facts. Also, speaking their native tongue reduces the discomfort of participating in the interview and potential extra work due to post-interview correction or confirmation. Depending on the scope of the investigation, the company can have attorneys who speak both the individual’s language and the company’s business language conducting interviews.

They can request assistance, for example, from an occupational health and safety representative, a shop steward or the occupational healthcare provider.

Employers may provide support, such as:

1. offering counselling for its employees to encourage open discussions and communication on any issues that they may be facing or clarify any questions they may have in respect of the investigation process;
2. reminding its employees of its zero-retaliation policy; and, if need be
3. making the necessary work arrangement to minimise potential interaction that would further aggravate the conflict or situation between the employees involved. 

Employers may also inform employees of the external resources available to them if they require any assistance in respect of the investigation provided by external parties such as TAFEP, the Singapore National Employers Federation, National Trade Union Congress, and Legal Aid Bureau.

If unrelated matters are revealed as a result of the investigation, the company must be notified and must start a new investigation regarding them per the appropriate rules, without affecting the original investigation.

If they are related to the work or workplace, the employer will handle the emerging matters separately. In internal investigations, the employer is allowed to use any material legally available.

If unrelated matters that require further investigation are revealed as a result of the investigation, the employer should take the necessary steps to investigate these matters, where relevant, under the employer’s grievance reporting, investigation and disciplinary processes. This should be done separately and independently from the existing investigation. Please note that section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code imposes a legal duty on any person who is aware that another has committed certain specified offences to "immediately" report the matter to the police, "in the absence of reasonable excuse" not to do so. Failure to comply with this requirement is punishable with imprisonment for up to six months, and/or a fine.

If the object of the grievance is connected to the ongoing investigation, the investigator may pursue that grievance within the same procedure or open a separate matter, under the company’s rules governing such a situation.

If the object of the grievance is not connected to the investigation, the employee must report the matter, or the investigator can do it, if the company’s policies allow it.

If the nature of the grievance relates to the employer's obligations to handle such matters in general, the grievance will be investigated either separately or as a part of the ongoing investigation.

The employer should require the employee to raise the grievance under the company’s existing grievance reporting, disciplinary and investigation processes so that the grievance, to the extent that it is relevant to the current investigation, can be investigated together. Otherwise, the grievance can be dealt with separately and independently of the existing investigation.

Sick leave suspends the employment agreement, and as a rule the employee should not be contacted during such a suspension. The investigation may continue without the participation of the investigated employee while that employee is absent, have its conclusion suspended while he or she is on leave, and resume once the employee returns to work.

As a general rule, sick leave does not prevent an investigation from progressing. Depending on the nature of the sickness, the employee can attend hearings and take part in the procedure. If the sickness prevents the employee from participating, the employer can put the process on hold temporarily.

If the employee under investigation has already responded to the allegations made against him or her and his or her participation is no longer required at this stage in the investigation, the employer may proceed with the investigation even while the employee is off sick.   

However, if the employee under investigation has not responded to the allegations made against him or her and his or her participation is still required in the investigation, the company may exercise its discretion to pause the investigation until the employee can assist in the investigations.  To prevent an employee from using a medical condition as an excuse to delay or avoid the investigation, the company may require the employee to provide specific medical documentation to address the issue of the employee’s ability to participate in the investigation and to adjust the investigation process accordingly. For instance, instead of scheduling an in-person interview, the company may send a list of written questions for the employee to answer, and may also extend timelines for responding, etc.   

If the employee is unable to return to work for the foreseeable future, the employer may consider reaching a provisional outcome based on the available evidence, which would be subject to change when the employee under investigation can return to work.

The company may be required to share information or documents with authorities such as a judge, the police, or the Public Attorney's office, or be subject to a government authority’s dawn raid. Workplace investigations can and in most cases should continue, and in such circumstances client-work privilege will be essential to enable the employer to control information being shared with third parties.

Regardless of a possible criminal investigation, the employer must run its internal workplace investigation without unnecessary delay. A workplace investigation and a criminal investigation are two separate processes and can be ongoing simultaneously, so the criminal process does not require the workplace investigation to be stayed. Thus, parallel investigations are to be considered as two separate matters. The police may only obtain evidence or material from the company or employer if strict requirements for equipment searches are met after a request for investigation has been submitted to the police.

Generally, there are no issues with an internal investigation being conducted in parallel to a criminal or regulatory investigation. The employer should inform the authorities of the ongoing internal investigation and comply with lawful directions from the authorities, for example, to share evidence gathered during the investigation with the authorities.

There is no legal obligation to inform them of the outcome. Any obligation would come from the company's policies.

The employer's conclusions from the investigation.

The employee under investigation should be told of the findings that have been made against the employee, the disciplinary action (if any) that will be taken against the employee and any avenue or timeline for the employee to appeal the outcome of the investigation.

There is no legal requirement or recommendation for the company to share the full or partial report or findings. It is also not a recommended measure. Therefore, unless the internal rules determine that the company must do it, any answer to queries should be limited to the fact that the investigation was concluded, and the company took the appropriate action.

The employee under investigation may only be informed of the conclusions.

It would suffice for a summary of the investigation’s findings to be shared with the complainant and the respondent employees.

If investigators conclude that a breach has occurred, the company may determine the appropriate response, which may include verbal or written warnings; the suspension of employment without payment (for up to 29 days) or termination of employment without or with cause; a review of policies or operational protocols; and new training modules or the updating of training modules.

If the investigators conclude that a breach has not occurred but determine that the report was made in good faith, the case must be set aside. If the investigators determine that the report was made in bad faith, the employer must determine how to respond to the bad-faith reporter.

The employer decides whether misconduct has taken place or not. Depending on the case, the employer may recommend a workplace conciliation in which the parties try to find a solution that can be accepted by both sides. The employer may choose to give an oral reprimand or a written warning. If the legal conditions are met, the employer may also terminate the employment agreement.

The employer should take any follow-up steps required and keep track of whether any appeal against the outcome of the investigation is lodged. If any appeal is lodged, the employer should handle this appeal following its internal procedure. To the extent necessary, any disciplinary measures against the respondent employee should be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

There are no legal requirements for the company to share the investigation findings with any party, including the reporter and the investigated party, so the employer must carefully consider the pros and cons of doing so on a case-by-case basis. Interview records can generally be kept private if interviews were conducted by an attorney.

In general, investigation materials, including findings, that includes personal data should only be processed by the personnel of the organisation who are responsible for internal investigations. However, it may in some situations be required by applicable legislation that findings are disclosed to competent authorities for the performance of their duties, such as conducting investigations in connection with malpractice and violations of the law.

A summary of the investigation’s findings should be disclosed to the employee who lodged the grievance and the employee under investigation.

If there are parallel criminal or regulatory investigations, the investigation findings should also be disclosed to the authorities.

Interview records or transcripts should be kept private unless disclosure is required by a court order or at the direction of the authorities.

The existence of the investigation should be kept on file for at least five years from the date of its conclusion. All information related to the investigation should be kept on file for the same period, but not on the employee’s record, to avoid the risk of accidental access by unauthorised individuals.

Please see question 7. The outcome of the investigation involving personal data may be retained only for as long as is necessary considering the purposes of the processing. In general, the retention of investigation-related data may be necessary while the investigation is still ongoing and even then the requirements of data minimization and accuracy should be considered. The data concerning the outcome of an investigation should be registered to the employee's record merely to the extent necessary in light of the employment relationship or potential disciplinary measures. In this respect, the applicable retention time depends on labour law-related rights and limitations, considering eg, the applicable periods for filing a suit.

This depends on the company’s internal disciplinary policy and the severity of the offence. For instance, a written warning issued against an employee for minor misconduct is usually kept in the respondent employee’s file for one year and if the employee does not commit any further breaches during this time, the written warning will be expunged. However, if there is a finding of serious misconduct, particularly if such a determination results in the dismissal of the employee, these records are generally kept in the employee’s file for the duration of time such records are statutorily required to be maintained.  

The employer’s legal exposure resulting from errors during the investigation depends on the error and the victim or victims affected. It may range from paying damages to a witness who was harassed because the company did not prevent retaliation from occurring; to the reversal of a termination for cause if a court determines that the evidence collected during the investigation did not meet the legal threshold to uphold it; to indemnification for a violation of privacy; or criminal prosecution because of unauthorised access to private communications.

There are no regulations regarding the actual investigation process. Therefore, the employer cannot be accused of procedural errors as such. However, once the matter has been adequately investigated, the employer must decide whether or not misconduct has taken place. If the employer considers that misconduct has taken place, the employer must take adequate measures for remedying the situation. Failure to adequately conduct the investigation could result in criminal sanctions being imposed on the employer as an organisation or the employer’s representative, or damages.

The employer may be exposed to legal action for a failure to properly conduct the investigation, including having such portions of the investigation set aside or held to be void by the courts, and be made to pay damages to the affected employee; or face investigation and administrative penalties by regulatory authorities such as the MOM.

In addition, after the Workplace Fairness Legislation comes into force, breach of its requirements may also expose the employer or culpable persons to potential statutory penalties. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness recommended, among other things, for the Workplace Fairness Legislation to provide for a range of penalties including corrective orders, work pass curtailment and financial penalties against employers or culpable persons, depending on the severity of the breach. It is thus expected that employers or culpable persons may be exposed to potential statutory penalties if the requirements of the Workplace Fairness Legislation are not complied with.