Workplace Investigations

From an Italian employment law perspective, there is no specific body of legislation that governs investigations. However, several legal and case-law principles may be relevant concerning various specific aspects of investigations, and to which reference will be made below (eg, provisions under Law No. 300 of 1970, the so-called Workers’ Statute regarding “controls on employees”, both physical and “remote”, or regarding “disciplinary proceedings”).

In addition, and outside of the specific scope of employment law, other law provisions may have an impact on investigations, including those regarding privacy law (eg, Italian Legislative Decree No. 196 of 2003 and the Regulation (EU) No. 679 of 2016 (GDPR), regarding data protection and the related policies), whistleblowing (Law No. 179 of 2017 and Directive (EU) No. 1937 of 2019, regarding whistleblower protection) and criminal law (eg, Italian Criminal Procedure Code, providing rules for criminal investigation and Italian Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001, regarding the corporate (criminal) liability of legal entities).

Dutch employment law does not provide for a timeframe within which an internal investigation must be launched. However, it is important for an employer who suspects abuse or irregularities, to start an internal investigation without delay. In essence, that means that as soon as management, or – depending on the specific circumstances – the person who is authorised to decide on disciplinary sanctions against a certain employee, becomes aware of a potential abuse or irregularity, all measures to initiate an internal investigation should be taken promptly. If this is not done, the employer may lose the opportunity to take certain disciplinary actions.

The legal framework relating to an investigation by an employer into the acts and omissions of an employee are determined by, among other things, section 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) that stipulates good employer practices; Section 7:660 DCC (right to give instructions to the employee); the European Convention on Human Rights; the Dutch Constitution; the General Data Processing Regulation; and, if the employer uses a private investigation agency, the Private Security Organisations and Detective Agencies Act and the Privacy Code of Conduct for Private Investigation Agencies.

The legal basis from which the employer derives the authority to investigate can be based on the employer's right to give instructions (section 7:660 DCC). Pursuant to this section, the employer has – to a certain extent – the right to give instructions to the employee “which are intended to promote good order in the undertaking of the employer”. In many cases, an investigation of a work-related incident will aim to promote good order within the company. As such, the investigation is trying to:

• find the truth;
• sanction the perpetrator; and
• prevent repetition.

Instructing an employee to cooperate with an internal investigation falls within the scope of the right to instruct.

Subsequently, the employer must behave as a good employer during the investigation, pursuant to section 7:611 DCC. This is coloured by the classic principles of careful investigation: the principle of justification, the principle of trust, the principle of proportionality, the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of equality. Furthermore, the principle of hearing both sides of the argument applies and there must be a concrete suspicion of wrongdoing.

There is no legislation on this area in Poland. However, employers implement internal policies that provide for workplace investigation rules to fulfil certain legal obligations, including those arising directly from labour law.

Based on the currently binding provisions of labour law, an employer must counteract unwanted behaviour in the workplace (eg, bullying, discrimination and unequal treatment). To fulfil this obligation, employers implement internal policies that provide a framework for reporting misconduct and conducting internal investigations. They may freely design the rules of such investigations, within the constraints of their policy. Therefore, it is recommended they create the policy based on the following:
 

• it should be possible to effectively report the misconduct;
• there should be more than one way to report misconduct;
• anonymous reporting should be allowed;
• an investigation committee should be appointed and be objective;
• rules on excluding persons with a conflict of interest from conducting the investigation should be provided; and
• the report from the investigation should be prepared and signed by all persons participating in the process.

However, work on a bill on whistleblower protections is in progress (the Draft Law). The Draft Law will not determine the rules of workplace investigations but it will force employers to implement a whistleblowing procedure and follow-up on recommendations in the case of a report, including initiating an internal investigation where appropriate. Whether an internal investigation is initiated depends on the assessment of a reported irregularity by the employer.

In addition, employers (especially those that are part of an international group) often already implement internal policies on whistleblowing management and internal investigations. Employers often base their policies on guidelines issued by relevant (usually international) organisations.

Spain has not passed any statutes, regulations or policies specifically governing workplace investigations. Instead, general employment and data protection legislation, which safeguards employees’ rights, is fully applicable during these types of enquiries.

These statutes focus on employee privacy. As a result, the application of this legislation:

• limits the matters that may be investigated: they have to be relevant to the employment relationship and there has to be a legitimate reason to conduct the enquiry;
• sets boundaries to the means that may be lawfully used by the company in the investigation: they must be the least intrusive means for employees’ rights (for instance, an email review should be a last resort, reserved for when less-invasive means are not available or would not be effective); and
• states that the companies’ decisions during the investigation must be proportional in light of the facts under review and the legal consequences attached to them.

Collective bargaining agreements, which in Spain generally apply to every company within their scope of application (normally a given economic sector), may regulate workplace investigations. However, it is unusual for collective bargaining agreements to regulate workplace investigations.

Finally, major international corporations with a presence in Spain do tend to have an ethics or whistleblowing policy that governs how an investigation should be conducted. Even if these are self-imposed policies, they are contractually binding and, once established, must be respected by companies.

There is no specific legal regulation for internal investigations in Switzerland. The legal framework is derived from general rules such as the employer's duty of care, the employee's duty of loyalty and the employee's data protection rights. Depending on the context of the investigation, additional legal provisions may apply; for instance, additional provisions of the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection or the Swiss Criminal Code.

Generally speaking, a workplace investigation can commence either as a consequence of facts reported by employees or third parties (either anonymous or not), for instance within a whistleblowing procedure or as part of normal and periodical activity carried out by internal auditing.

The workplace investigation can be exercised by an internal (ad hoc) investigation department of the company itself, for example under the direction of the internal audit department or compliance department. This is possible if there is sufficient manpower with the necessary independence, knowledge and experience. Case law, however, shows that courts tend to be more critical of internal investigations than external investigations. For more complex and sensitive investigations, a forensic accountant or lawyer is often involved. The advantage of involving a lawyer is that the investigation and its outcome are covered by privilege. This guarantees the confidentiality of the investigation, also regarding supervisors and investigating authorities. Yet, at the same time, there is increasing debate about the role of lawyers as investigators, given their inherent bias to work in the interests of their client (the employer).

The investigation starts with a plan of approach that must be signed by the contractor. This plan of approach outlines the legal framework of the investigation, such as the scope, the means to be used, how it will deal with data, the use of experts, how the interviews will be conducted, the way of reporting and confidentiality. Furthermore, there must be a protocol for how the investigator conducts the investigation and that applies to all parties involved.

Gathering information can be done in various ways. For example:

• An inventory can be made of the household effects of a company. In the event of theft, an inventory can be an appropriate means of establishing exactly what has been stolen.
• An investigation of the books: this is an investigation of all documents of the company. These are not private documents of employees, but documents of the company itself. For an investigator, an interview can be a good way to gather more information, for example by interviewing witnesses. In practice, there are almost always several interviews with the suspects, the employer and other people involved.
• Open source research, which often involves researching a person's social media, or public documents relevant to the research. In principle, “open sources” refers to all public documents in the world; nowadays, many public documents are digitised.
• A workplace search, which includes everything present in the workplace: diaries, computer files, e-mails, letters, and even the contents of a wastebasket.
• A digital data investigation: this is a frequently used tool in fraud investigations. Most communication and documents are digital nowadays. It is, therefore, very likely that evidence can be found in digital data. Each of these means of investigation must respect the principles of an internal investigation and comply with the GDPR principles .

There are no legal requirements in this respect – it depends on the internal policies or practices at a given working establishment. Based on our experience – an internal investigation usually commences with a preliminary assessment of a reported irregularity. If the preliminary assessment leads to a conclusion that a reported situation may be an irregularity, an investigation is launched by appointing a commission or team that conducts the investigation or selecting an investigator. Then, a plan of investigation is established. Depending on the circumstances, the investigation plan may involve a collection of documents or files, their analysis, and interviews with a victim, witnesses or a subject (although the procedure depends on the type of case, internal rules and practice). At the end of the process, the report is prepared by the commission or team with facts established during the process, recommendations, and other suggestions as to the investigated issue.

Given that Spain lacks legislation in this area (see question 1), each company commences workplace investigations following its internal guidelines, policies or practices, if any. In our experience, investigations begin with a formal decision to commence the enquiry, which is set out in writing for record-keeping purposes.

This decision will normally mention:

• the facts that will be investigated;
• the reasons to investigate the facts (eg, they could be a breach of company policies);
• how the investigation will be conducted; and
• the individuals who will conduct the enquiry.

Depending on the company, the decision to initiate the investigation may take the form of a decision by the competent employee or officer (ethics or compliance officer) or the minutes of the relevant corporate body (board of directors or compliance committee).

Internal investigations are usually initiated after reports about possible violations of the employer's code of conduct, applicable laws or regulations have been submitted by employees to their superiors, the human resources department or designated internal reporting systems such as hotlines (including whistleblowing hotlines).

For an internal investigation to be initiated, there must be a reasonable suspicion (grounds).[1] If no such grounds exist, the employer must ask the informant for further or more specific information. If no grounds for reasonable suspicion exists, the case must be closed. If grounds for reasonable suspicion exist, the appropriate investigative steps can be initiated by a formal investigation request from the company management.[2]

In general, from an Italian employment law perspective, there is no specific legal rule governing the suspension of an employee during a workplace investigation.

However, it should be noted that:

• certain National Collective Bargaining Agreements (NCBAs) may provide, in particular circumstances, for the possibility of suspending (with pay) an employee (eg, when the employee is under criminal proceedings – as stated, for example, in the NCBA for executives of credit, financial and investment companies);
• according to well-established case law, the employer may suspend the employee from work (with pay) in the framework of a disciplinary procedure (which, according to Italian law, must be followed before applying any disciplinary sanction, including dismissal[1]), where the facts behind the procedure are sufficiently serious;

• certain case-law decisions have also stated that – even in the absence of a disciplinary procedure – the employer may suspend (with pay) the employee when it has very serious suspicions of an employee’s unlawful conduct, and for the time that is strictly necessary to ascertain his or her liability.

The above may be done by the employer, for instance, if keeping the employee in service may cause a risk of tampering with evidence or a risk of damage to the physical safety of other employees or company property.

Normally, in the above-mentioned circumstances, the suspension is with pay and with job security.

Suspension is usually a disciplinary measure. The employer may, for example, suspend an employee if it is necessary that the employee doesn't work during the investigation into their actions or omissions. Suspension has no specific legal basis in Dutch law, but several conditions can be derived from case law or collective labour agreements.

Overriding interest

The measure may only be taken if the employee's presence at work would cause considerable harm to the employer's business or if, due to other compelling reasons that do not outweigh the employee's interests, the employer cannot reasonably be expected to tolerate the employee's continued presence at work. If there is a well-founded fear that the employee will (among other things) frustrate the investigation into their actions, the employer may proceed to suspend the employee.

Procedural rules

The principle of acting in line with good employment practice (section 7:611 DCC) plays an essential role in the question of the admissibility of the suspension. The principle of due care leads, among other things, to a duty of investigation for the employer and means the employer must enable the employee to respond adequately to any accusations.

Contractual arrangements

Many collective agreements or staff handbooks contain regulations on suspension and deactivation. The regulation may concern the grounds, the duration or the procedure to be followed. The latter includes rules on hearing both sides of the argument, the right to assistance, how the decision must be communicated to the person concerned, and the possibility of “internal appeal” and rehabilitation. Under good employment practice, the employer must proceed swiftly with the investigation and allow the employee to respond to the results. If the employee hinders the investigation in any way, it can be a reason to continue the suspension during the investigation.

Pay

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that suspension is a cause for non-performance of work that must reasonably be borne by the employer according to section 7:628 DCC. The employee has a right to be paid in nearly all circumstances, with limited exceptions (eg, if the employee is in detention and the employer suspended the employee in response to that).

Duration

The duration of the suspension during a workplace investigation is not legally pre-determined. However, the suspension of an employee must be a temporary measure. The relevant collective agreement often stipulates how long the suspension may last.

Polish law does not provide for the suspension of an employee. Instead, an employer may agree with an employee that he or she will be released from the obligation to perform work during a relevant period of investigation (with the right to remuneration). The employer may not do this unilaterally, unless the employee is in a notice period. As an alternative, which is more common in practice, the employer may force the employee to use outstanding holiday leave (subject to limitations provided by law) or the parties may mutually agree on the use of holiday leave or unpaid leave (if the employee has already used his or her holiday entitlement in full).

Yes, a company may suspend an employee if it has valid grounds to believe that keeping an employee under investigation in his or her position during the enquiry could obstruct the investigation or become an obstacle to it (for example, the employee could try to conceal facts or influence other employees within the organisation).

The decision to suspend the employee must be communicated in writing. This will usually take the form of a suspension letter that explains the reasons that have led to the suspension, its expected duration and that the suspension is not a disciplinary measure. Since the suspension is not a disciplinary measure, the employee would be entitled to continue collecting his or her standard remuneration during the suspension.

In Spain, employees have the right to be effectively occupied during their employment. Therefore, the duration of the suspension should be limited in time to what is strictly necessary to avoid what led to the suspension in the first place.

It is possible to suspend an employee during a workplace investigation.[1] While there are no limits on duration, the employee will remain entitled to full pay during this time.

In general, from an employment law perspective, there is no specific legal rule governing the minimum qualifications of who should conduct a workplace investigation. Generally speaking, a workplace investigation is carried out by the internal audit function, when there is one (generally in large companies), or by the HR or legal departments.

Outside the workplace, the employer may carry out investigations on the employee – normally without the latter knowing – through a private investigator. This investigation should be carried out to verify that the employee does not engage in conduct contrary to the company’s interests (eg, unlawful competition, disclosure of confidential information, criminal breaches). In such cases, the private investigator must comply with specific rules, mainly found in Italian Royal Decree No. 773 of 1931, according to which the investigator must, among other things: hold a licence issued by the competent authority; and keep a register of the activities conducted daily.

In addition, if there is a suspicion that a crime has been committed, the company may appoint a criminal law lawyer to conduct their own defensive criminal law investigation, as provided by article 391bis and the Italian Criminal Procedure Code.

Workplace investigations, if they are to be of value, must be conducted by an expert, professional and independent party. To safeguard the independence of the investigation, it is crucial that neither the contractor nor any other third party can influence how the investigation is to be conducted or how the outcome should be reported. The investigation must be conducted according to the protocol drawn up at the start and the investigator must not be involved in the follow-up to the outcome.

There is an ongoing discussion of whether lawyers can conduct an objective and independent investigation, due to the bias inherent to their profession. On the other hand, investigation bureaus or committees are also not necessarily independent, as they are not regulated and not subject to disciplinary law.

There are no legal requirements in this regard but it is good practice if the team of investigators or individuals who deal with the case consists of:

• a person who has specific knowledge in a given field (concerning the violation);
• a member of the HR team; and
• a lawyer (it is recommended to engage an independent, external lawyer who can maintain the objectivity of the investigation, especially in complex matters or where a conflict of interest arises or may arise).

It is crucial that the investigators are independent (and they must be allowed to act independently).

Also, certain personal features are useful (eg, the ability to objectively assess a situation, empathy, and managing skills).

As set out in question 1, workplace investigations must be proportional and companies must use the least intrusive means to affect employees’ rights. This translates into the following principles on who conducts the investigation:

• the enquiry must involve a minimal number of employees;
• only those employees with competencies on the investigated matters should be involved (normally human resources or compliance); and
• employees conducting the investigation must be qualified and have the power and seniority to do so proficiently (although a formal qualification is not required).

The examinations can be carried out internally by designated internal employees, by external specialists, or by a combination thereof. The addition of external advisors is particularly recommended if the allegations are against an employee of a high hierarchical level[1], if the allegations concerned are quite substantive and, in any case, where an increased degree of independence is sought.

In principle, no. However, if the employee believes that, during the workplace investigation, there is a breach of his or her rights, he or she could act to protect them before the court (eg, through precautionary urgency proceedings under Article 700 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code.

Usually there is some kind of regulation in place as a result of which the employee is obliged to cooperate with the investigation. Nonetheless, there are examples whereby the employee refuses to cooperate. Especially in workplace investigations it will be hard to be able to conduct an investigation in such a situation.

There are, however, no possibilities for an employee to bring legal action in order or with the result to stop the investigation. 

This is unlikely. Theoretically, an employee can file a claim against an employer concerning the infringement of personal rights in the course of an investigation and a motion to secure his or her claims, which would consist of an employer being forced to suspend the proceedings, but in practice we have not encountered such a situation.

No, an employee under investigation has no direct legal option to stop an investigation. This is because conducting an enquiry is within the employers’ legally acknowledged powers, attached to their capacity to manage their business and enforce employment contracts and internal policies.

Notwithstanding the above, if the investigation breaches an employee’s rights (privacy, dignity, remuneration, etc), the individual could:

• file a lawsuit aimed at stopping said breach (and potentially seeking an award for damages); or
• file a claim with the Labour Inspectorate with the same purpose.

The result, in this case, would stop the enquiry.

The accused could theoretically request a court to stop the investigation, for instance, by arguing that there is no reason for the investigation and that the investigation infringes the employee's personality rights. However, if the employer can prove that there were grounds for reasonable suspicion and is conducting the investigation properly, it is unlikely that such a request would be successful.

In general, employees must cooperate with a workplace investigation (as it is part of their general duty of diligence, as provided under article 2104 of the Italian Civil Code), and this may also include a duty to act as a witness.

In this respect, it must be pointed out that, even if the employee has a contractual duty to provide information requested by the employer, one limit to this principle could be, for example, self-incrimination.

However, caution is necessary during the interviews both with the employee under investigation and with co-workers, to avoid the risk of transforming the interview into what could be considered the de facto start of a disciplinary procedure. In other words, during the interview, the employer should only gather information on certain facts, and not put forward charges against the employee; otherwise, this could prevent or limit the employer’s possibility to take disciplinary action regarding the same facts.

Furthermore, employees who cooperate within the workplace investigation must be protected against any retaliatory action directly or indirectly linked to their testimony (eg, as far as is possible, anonymity should be guaranteed, and disciplinary measures should apply to those who breach measures in place to protect the employee).

Apart from workplace investigations, employees are protected against retaliatory measures of any kind, which are always null and void and subject to appeal.

For a defensive criminal law investigation (see par. 4), the witness can refuse to testify; in this case, the criminal law lawyer may ask the prosecutor to interview the witness.

There is no statutory regime for employee witnesses in internal (workplace) investigations and, hence, no specific statutory regime for legal protection. However, as part of the idea that employees have to act in line with good employment practices (section 7:611 DCC), employees, who potentially acquired knowledge in a work-related context on the subject matter of an investigation, are typically required vis-à-vis their employer to participate in such internal investigations. The required degree of cooperation will depend on the type and nature of the investigation and the matter that is being investigated. The principle of “good employment practices” in turn requires the employer to be guided by proportionality and subsidiarity considerations: which information is relevant to the investigation and what is the least burdensome means of collecting such information?

This may also impact the degree to which an employer can involve employee witnesses in an investigation. Increased prudence should be observed, among other things, if the relevant employee witnesses may themselves become implicated in the investigation or when the employer envisages sharing certain investigative findings with regulatory or criminal authorities, for instance as part of cooperation arrangements in an ongoing investigation. In such cases, the relevant employee should at least be allowed to retain legal counsel before continuing interview procedures.

In general, an employee may not be forced to act as a witness, but based on the provisions of the Polish Labour Code, an employee must act for the benefit of a working establishment or employer and perform work in line with the instructions of an employer. A lack of cooperation from an employee (eg, refusing to attend a hearing, hiding facts or even false testimony) may constitute a basis for the loss of an employer’s trust in the employee and, as a consequence, may constitute a valid reason for termination (in some specific situations, even without notice).

There is no formal protection for employees who act as witnesses. However, participation in an investigation cannot result in negative consequences (eg, no retaliation is allowed). Also, during an investigation, employees who are bound by professional secrecy are not required to provide information that would imply a breach of such secrecy.

A company cannot force an employee to actively take part in a workplace investigation or to act as a witness. However, if a co-worker’s decision not to collaborate could be construed as an attempt to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, the company could then enforce disciplinary measures for this reason.

In our experience, employees tend to collaborate during workplace investigations and no retaliatory action can be taken against them for this reason. For example, if an employee provided evidence against his or her direct manager, the manager could not reprimand the employee or take any action that could be construed as such.

Due to the employee's duty of loyalty towards the employer and the employer's right to give instructions to its employees, employees generally must take part in an ongoing investigation and comply with any summons for questioning if the employer demands this (article 321d, Swiss Code of Obligations). If the employees refuse to participate, they generally are in breach of their statutory duties, which may lead to measures such as a termination of employment.

The question of whether employees may refuse to testify if they would have to incriminate themselves is disputed in legal doctrine.[1] However, according to legal doctrine, a right to refuse to testify exists if criminal conduct regarding the questioned employee or a relative (article 168 et seq, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code) is involved, and it cannot be ruled out that the investigation documentation may later end up with the prosecuting authorities (ie, where employees have a right to refuse to testify in criminal proceedings, they cannot be forced to incriminate themselves by answering questions in an internal investigation).[2]

Several legal and case-law principles may be relevant depending on the kind of investigation, including the following:

• gathering evidence through employee “physical inspections and inspections on the employee’s belongings”: according to article 6 of the Workers’ Statute, these inspections are generally prohibited. They are permitted only where necessary to protect company assets (in such cases, corporal inspections may be carried out, subject to trade union agreement or National Labour Inspectorate authorisation, provided that, for example, they are carried out outside the workplace, that employees are selected with an automatic selection tool, and that the dignity and confidentiality of employees are protected);
• gathering evidence through “audiovisual equipment and other instruments from which the possibility of remote control of employees’ activities arises”: according to article 4 of the Workers’ Statute, remote systems cannot be directly aimed at controlling employees’ activity, but can only be put in place for organisational, production, work safety or asset-protection needs (which may result in an indirect control over employees’ activity), and may be installed before a trade union agreement or with previous authorisation from the National Labour Inspectorate; however, these rules do not apply to working tools in an employee’s possession (see question 8) and, in any case, employees must be informed of the possibility of remote control;
• gathering physical evidence through so-called defensive controls: according to the most recent case law, “defensive controls” can be defined as investigations carried out by the company where it has a suspicion of unlawful conduct by its employees. These controls can be carried out within certain limits and restrictions provided by case law – even in the absence of the guarantees provided for in article 4 of the Workers’ Statute.

In addition, when gathering physical evidence, there may be other provisions of law not strictly related to employment law that must be followed, for example, regarding privacy regulations (eg, minimisation of the use of personal data, collection of data only for specific purposes, and adoption of safety measures).

Dutch data protection rules are based on the EU Data Protection Directive. The employer has to notify the Dutch Data Protection Authority when processing personal data as part of an internal investigation. Given that the notification can be accessed publicly, it is recommended that the employer give a sufficiently high-level description of the case. In addition, the description should be sufficiently broad to include the entire investigation, and any future expansions of the scope of the investigation. Often companies make filings for all future internal investigations, without referring to specific matters.

The employer has to notify employees whose personal data is being processed about – among other things – the purposes of the investigation and any other relevant information. According to the Dutch Data Protection Act, this information obligation may only be suspended on restricted grounds, i.e. if the purpose of the investigation is the prevention, detection and prosecution of crimes and postponement is necessary for the interests of the investigation (e.g., because there is a risk of losing evidence, or collusion by individuals coordinating responses before being interviewed)). These exceptions on the duty to inform involved persons must be interpreted very restrictively. As soon as the reason for postponement is no longer applicable (e.g., because the evidence has been secured), the individuals need to be informed.

Dutch data protection law does not require the consent of employees. Consent given by employees, however, also cannot compensate for a lack of legitimate purpose or unnecessary or disproportionate data processing, as the consent given by an employee to its employer is not considered to be voluntary given the inequality of power between them.

Furthermore, internal company policies may contain specific data protection rules.

If personal data is involved – the rules and principles of the GDPR will apply. If the physical evidence includes e-mail correspondence, files, or an employee’s equipment and possessions, the Labour Code will apply (ie, as a general rule, to monitor it, a monitoring policy must be implemented at that working establishment). Such a policy must strictly determine the aim of the surveillance and an employer must only apply surveillance in situations that reflect this aim. Also, when it comes to monitoring correspondence, it must not infringe on the secrecy of the correspondence, which in practice means that the employer should not check employees’ private correspondence when checking their business mailboxes.

The General Data Protection Regulation and the Spanish Data Protection Law apply when gathering any type of evidence, including physical evidence. This means that companies may only process personal data when they have lawful grounds to do so and within the limits set forth for special categories of personal data (health, union affiliation, criminal records, etc.).

The Spanish Statute of Workers specifically states that employees and their possessions may be registered when it is necessary to protect the companies’ property (or the property of other co-workers). This registration must:

• be conducted in the workplace and during working hours;
• respect the employee’s privacy and dignity; and
• be performed in front of an employee representative or, if not possible, in the presence of another employee of the company.

The Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection applies to the gathering of evidence, in particular such collection must be lawful, transparent, reasonable and in good faith, and data security must be preserved.[1]

It can be derived from the duty to disclose and hand over benefits received and work produced (article 321b, Swiss Code of Obligations) as they belong to the employer.[2] The employer is, therefore, generally entitled to collect and process data connected with the end product of any work completely by an employee and associated with their business. However, it is prohibited by the Swiss Criminal Code to open a sealed document or consignment to gain knowledge of its contents without being authorised to do so (article 179 et seq, Swiss Criminal Code). Anyone who disseminates or makes use of information of which he or she has obtained knowledge by opening a sealed document or mailing not intended for him or her may become criminally liable (article 179 paragraph 1, Swiss Criminal Code).

It is advisable to state in internal regulations that the workplace might be searched as part of an internal investigation and in compliance with all applicable data protection rules if this is necessary as part of the investigation.

In light of the legal and case-law principles as outlined above:

• see question 7 regarding employee “physical inspections and inspections on the employee’s belongings”;
• regarding “audiovisual equipment and other instruments from which the possibility of remote control of employees’ activities also arises”, article 4 of the Workers’ Statute provides for:
  • the prohibition of the use of audiovisual equipment and instruments of “direct” remote control (ie, whose sole purpose is to verify the manner, quality and quantity of working performance (eg, a camera installed in an office to film employees’ working activities, without any other purpose));
  • the possibility of carrying out controls through audiovisual equipment and “indirect” remote instruments (ie, instruments that serve different needs (organisational, production, work safety or company assets’ protection), but which indirectly monitor working activities (eg, a camera installed in a warehouse to prevent theft, but which indirectly monitors the activity of warehouse workers), which may only be installed with a trade union agreement (or National Labour Inspectorate authorisation);
  • the possibility of carrying out checks using working tools in the employee’s possession (e.g., PCs, tablets, mobile phones, e-mail), which may be carried out even in the absence of any trade union agreement, provided that the employee is given adequate information on how to use the tools and how checks may be carried out on their use (according to privacy law strictly related to the employment relationship).

Furthermore, based on case law, the employer can carry out so-called defensive controls (ie, actions carried out in the absence of the guarantees provided for in article 4, to protect the company and its assets from any unlawful conduct by employees). These “defensive controls” can be carried out if:

• they are intended to determine unlawful behaviour by the employee (ie, not simply to verify his or her working performance);
• there is a “well-founded suspicion” that an offence has been committed;
• they take place after the conduct complained of has been committed; and
• adequate precautions are nevertheless put in place to guarantee a proper balancing between the need to protect company assets and safeguarding the dignity and privacy of the employee.

When conducting an internal investigation (which must have a legitimate purpose), the employer must act in accordance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. In line with these principles, the means of collecting and processing personal data during an internal investigation as well as the data that is searched, collected or processed, should be adequate, relevant and not excessive given the purposes for which the data is being collected or subsequently processed. These principles can be complied with by, for example, using specific search terms when searching electronic data, limiting the investigation’s scope (subject matter, period, geographic locations) and, in principle, excluding an employee's private data.

The employer is, in principle, allowed to access documents, emails and internet connection history saved on computers that were provided to the employees to perform their duties, provided the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity are taken into account. In other words, reading the employee's emails or searching electronic devices provided by the employer must serve a legitimate purpose (e.g. tracing suspected irregularities or abuse) and the manner of review or collecting and processing the data contained in such emails should be in accordance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.

The employer can ask the employee to hand over an employee's USB stick for an investigation. Depending on company policies and (individual or collective) employment agreements, an employee is, in principle, not obliged to comply with such a request. A refusal from an employee, when there is a strong indication that this USB stick contains information that is relevant to an investigation into possible irregularities, may be to the disadvantage of an employee, for example in a dismissal case.

The following factors, which derive from the Bărbulescu judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, are relevant to the question of whether an employee's e-mail or internet use can be monitored:

• whether the employee has been informed in advance of (the nature of) the possible monitoring of correspondence and other communications by the employer;
• the extent of the monitoring and the seriousness of the intrusion into the employee's privacy;
• whether the employer has put forward legitimate grounds for justifying the monitoring;
• whether a monitoring system using less intrusive methods and measures would have been possible;
• the consequences of the monitoring for the employee; and
• whether the employee has been afforded adequate safeguards, in particular in the case of intrusive forms of monitoring.

These requirements can sometimes create a barrier for employers, as seen in a ruling by the District Court Midden-Nederland (16 December 2021, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:6071) in which the employer had used information obtained from the employee's e-mail as the basis for a request for termination of the employment contract. In the proceedings, the employee argued that his employer did not have the authority to search his e-mail.

According to the District Court, it was unclear whether the employer had complied with the requirements of Bărbulescu regarding searching the employee's e-mail. The regulations submitted by the employer only described the processing of data flows within the organisation in general. Therefore, the District Court found that the employer did not have a (sufficient) e-mail and internet protocol and the employee was not properly informed that his employer could monitor him. In addition, according to the District Court, it was unclear what exactly prompted the employer to search the employee's e-mail, as the employer did not provide any insight into the nature and content of the investigation. As a result, the District Court was unable to determine whether the employer had legitimate grounds to search the employee's e-mail. On this basis, the District Court disregarded the (possibly) illegally obtained evidence and ruled against the employer's termination request.

It depends on whether the employer implemented rules of personal control at the workplace. If yes, such rules are applicable. If not, in our opinion if there is suspicion of a serious violation, it is possible to carry out an ad hoc inspection but its scope should be limited only to necessary activities and should not concern an employee’s private files or correspondence, so as not to infringe on personal rights. If there is an ad hoc inspection, an employee should be informed in advance, and it should take place in the presence of the employee or employee’s representative, observing the rules of fairness and equity.

Please see question 7.

The basic rule is that the employer may not search private data during internal investigations.

If there is a strong suspicion of criminal conduct on the part of the employee and a sufficiently strong justification exists, a search of private data may be justified.[1] The factual connection with the employment relationship is given, for example, in the case of a criminal act committed during working hours or using workplace infrastructure.[2]

The regulations on whistleblowing in the private sector were originally outlined in article 6 of Italian Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001 (as amended by Law No. 179 of 2017), which state that the models of organisation must provide for one or more channels that allow persons in positions of representation, administration and management of the entity (and persons subject to their direction or supervision) to report unlawful conduct according to Italian Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001 and violations of the entity’s organisational and management rules.

Currently, Italy has implemented Directive (EU) No. 1937 of 2019, which provides for the adoption of new standards of protection for whistleblowers, through the Italian Legislative Decree No. 24 of 2023 (WB Decree)[1].

In line with the Directive, the WB Decree states, inter alia, that[2]:

• an internal whistleblowing reporting channel must be put in place by all private legal entities (and legal entities in the public sector) that have employed, during the previous year, an average of 50 employees or, even below this threshold, operate in certain industries[3] or have adopted an organizational model in accordance with Legislative Decree no. 231 of 2001;
• the WB Decree prescriptions apply to reports concerning breaches of certain national/EU[4] legal provisions (varying depending on features such as the private or public nature of the employer and its dimensions), and not to claims or requests linked to interests of a personal nature of the reporting individuals (pertaining to their individual employment contracts or to relations with their superiors)[5];
• whistleblowers’ reporting may take place through:
  • the company’s internal reporting channels and internal reporting procedures (with the possibility – for entities employing up to 249 employees, even if not part of the same group – to share whistleblowing reporting channels); or
  • external reporting channels and external reporting procedures established by the member states’ competent authorities (in Italy, ANAC, i.e. the National Anticorruption Authority); or
  • in certain circumstances, public disclosure;
• whistleblowing systems must provide:
  • a duty of confidentiality regarding the whistleblowers’ identity (which generally may not be disclosed to persons other than those competent to receive or investigate on the reports, except in specific case and with the whistleblower’s consent; see also answer to question 12 below); and
  • ways of protecting collected data according to the GDPR, as well as tight deadlines for communication with whistleblowers[6]; and
  • an integrated system of protection of whistleblowers against any retaliatory action directly or indirectly linked to their reports or declarations, with a reversal of the burden of proof (meaning the employer must give proof of the non-retaliatory nature of measures adopted vis-à-vis whistleblowers); and
  • the procedures to be taken in case of anonymous whistleblowing report.

The former Act on the House for Whistleblowers already provided for several preconditions that a whistleblowing procedure must meet. For example, internal reporting lines must be laid down, as well as how the internal report is handled, and an obligation of confidentiality and the opportunity to consult an advisor in confidence must be applied. Employers are obliged to share the whistleblowing policy with employees, including information about the employee's legal protection. The employee who reports a suspicion of wrongdoing in good faith may not be disadvantaged in their legal position because of the report (section17e/ea Act House of Whistleblowers).

The starting point is that an employee must first report internally, unless this cannot reasonably be expected. If the employee does not report internally first, the House for Whistleblowers does not initiate an investigation. The House for Whistleblowers was established on 1 July 2016 and has two main tasks: advising employees on the steps to take and conducting an investigation in response to a report.

The Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers, which entered into force in 2023, introduced several changes, of which the most relevant are:

• Abolition of mandatory internal reporting: the obligation to report internally first is abolished. Direct external reporting is allowed, such as to the House for Whistleblowers or another competent authority. When reporting externally, the reporter retains his protection. However, reporting internally first remains preferable and will be encouraged by the employer as much as possible.
• Expansion of prohibition on detriment: the prohibition on detriment already included prejudicing the legal position of the reporter, such as suspension, dismissal, demotion, withholding of promotion, reduction of salary or change of work location. It now also includes all forms of disadvantage, such as being blacklisted, refusing to give a reference, bullying, intimidation and exclusion. 
• Stricter time limit requirements for internal reporting: the reporter must receive an acknowledgement of receipt of the report within seven days and the reporter must receive information from the employer on the assessment of their report within a reasonable period, not exceeding three months.

• Extension of the circle of protected persons: not just employees, but third parties who are in a working relationship with the employer are now also protected, such as freelancers, interns, volunteers, suppliers, shareholders, job applicants and involved family members and colleagues.

In principle, an internal investigation should be conducted in the same way, regardless of whether it is initiated following a whistleblowing report, an audit, or a monitoring result. This includes anything related to confidentiality, fairness, data privacy protection, etc.

If an internal investigation is initiated following a whistleblower report, the main characteristic that is imposed by the EU Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of EU Law (Whistleblowers Directive) and that will also be available under the Draft Law is for the organisation (employer) to communicate (if practicable) the report to the whistleblower. Furthermore, the whistleblower should receive feedback as to whether follow-up actions were undertaken following the report and, if yes – what actions were taken – and if not – why the follow-up actions were not taken.

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 23 October 2019, on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, has been implemented in Spain through Law 2/2023 (Ley 2/2023, de 20 de febrero, reguladora de la protección de las personas que informen sobre infracciones normativas y de lucha contra la corrupción). This law limits the capacity of companies to retaliate or to take any action against employees who report workplace violations or breaches of the law. Any action taken against an employee in such a position would be considered null and void if challenged in court.

Spanish law allows anonymous reports to protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

If an employee complains to his or her superiors about grievances or misconduct in the workplace and is subsequently dismissed, this may constitute an unlawful termination (article 336, Swiss Code of Obligations). However, the prerequisite for this is that the employee behaves in good faith, which is not the case if he or she is (partly) responsible for the grievance.

From an employment law perspective, confidentiality obligations may be seen from two different points of view:

• as a general duty of the employee related to the employment relationship, according to article 2105 of the Italian Civil Code, a “loyalty obligation”, which includes confidentiality obligations. On top of these, there are usually further confidentiality clauses in individual employment contracts; and
• as a general duty (linked to the outcome of the investigation) of the employer to keep confidential the identity of the employee who cooperates during the investigation (as whistleblower or a witness) to protect him or her.

In defensive criminal law investigations, the witness can’t reveal questions or answers given in his or her interview to a third party.

With regards to the confidentiality applicable to the whistleblower, see above under question 9 and below under question 12.

The principle of due care requires employers to act prudently when it comes to sharing the identity of persons involved, such as complainants and implicated persons; and investigative findings, notably when certain employees may be implicated. As a result, such information is usually shared within an employer to designated departments on a need-to-know basis only. Additional safeguards as to the protection of whistleblowers' identities apply since the Whistleblower Directive (see question 9) was implemented in Dutch law. Also, see question 13 for the confidentiality obligations of employees vis-à-vis their employer.

The law does not cover this issue, apart from whistleblower regulations, as it should be regulated by the employer in their internal rules. The employer should ensure all participants of the investigation keep information related to it secret, as long as is necessary for the investigation (or even longer, if required by law concerning personal data or other specially protected information). Reputation, personal data and the personal rights of other people cannot be breached during the proceedings and this should be protected.

Moreover, according to the Draft Law – a whistleblower’s personal data should be kept confidential. It can only be disclosed if law enforcement authorities require it. Also, confidentiality should be guaranteed for the subject and other interested persons.

Companies and employees are not bound by any statutory confidentiality obligation in the context of workplace investigations. However, if a company’s enquiry has the potential to examine employees’ private affairs, then the company must ensure the confidentiality of the investigation.

This confidentiality obligation would not arise from the investigation itself, but from the company’s obligation to safeguard its employees’ rights.

Besides the employee's duty of performance (article 319, Swiss Code of Obligations), the employment relationship is defined by the employer's duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations) and the employee's duty of loyalty (article 321a, Swiss Code of Obligations). Ancillary duties can be derived from the two duties, which are of importance for the confidentiality of an internal investigation.[1]

In principle, the employer must respect and protect the personality (including confidentiality and privacy) and integrity of the employee (article 328 paragraph 1, Swiss Code of Obligations) and take appropriate measures to protect the employee. Because of the danger of pre-judgment or damage to reputation as well as other adverse consequences, the employer must conduct an internal investigation discreetly and objectively. The limits of the duty of care are found in the legitimate self-interest of the employer.[2]

In return for the employer's duty of care, employees must comply with their duty of loyalty and safeguard the employer's legitimate interests. In connection with an internal investigation, employees must therefore keep the conduct of an investigation confidential. Additionally, employees must keep confidential and not disclose to any third party any facts that they have acquired in the course of the employment relationship, and which are neither obvious nor publicly accessible.[3]

From an employment law perspective, our legal system does not provide a specific duty for an employer to inform employees that a workplace investigation is in progress.

In addition, disclosing such information could put at risk the outcome of the workplace investigation (eg, destruction of evidence), and it would therefore be arguable that no information should be provided to employees.

On the other hand, if, upon completion of the investigation, the employer decides to bring disciplinary action against the employee, then the latter must be informed of the complaints with a letter stating the procedure (see questions 3 and 12).

An implicated person is typically provided with a summary description of the scope of the investigation and, hence, the allegations against such an employee (if any). This is usually done in the interview invite sent to the relevant interviewee, which also provides an opportunity to prepare for an interview and (if relevant) seek legal advice.

There is no specific mandatory information that should be given to an employee who is the subject of an internal investigation. However, it is common practice that he or she must know what the allegations against them are, on what grounds these allegations are formulated and be given a right to discuss these allegations and the evidence or grounds for these allegations.

It is not necessary to inform an investigated employee about an enquiry or of the allegations made against him or her. The obligation to disclose would only arise when:

• interviewing the employee would be the least intrusive means to investigate the facts; or
• if disciplinary measures are implemented as a result of the investigation. Since employees are entitled to challenge all disciplinary measures against them, they could request a court of law to disclose all the findings of the investigation, to assess if these findings could be useful to challenge the disciplinary measure.

As a result of the employer's duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations), employees under investigation have certain procedural rights. These include, in principle, the right of the accused to be heard. In this context, the accused has the right to be informed at the beginning of the questioning about the subject of the investigation and at least the main allegations and they must be allowed to share their view and provide exculpatory evidence.[1] The employer, on the other hand, is not obliged to provide the employee with existing evidence, documents, etc, before the start of the questioning.[2]

Covert investigations in which employees are involved in informal or even private conversations to induce them to provide statements are not compatible with the data-processing principles of good faith and the requirement of recognisability, according to article 4 of the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection.[3]

Also, rights to information arise from the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection. In principle, the right to information (article 8, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection) is linked to a corresponding request for information by the concerned person and the existence of data collection within the meaning of article 3 (lit. g), Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection. Insofar as the documents from the internal investigation recognisably relate to a specific person, there is in principle a right to information concerning these documents. Subject to certain conditions, the right to information may be denied, restricted or postponed by law (article 9 paragraph 1, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). For example, such documents and reports may also affect the confidentiality and protection interests of third parties, such as other employees. Based on the employer's duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations), the employer is required to protect them by taking appropriate measures (eg, by making appropriate redactions before handing out copies of the respective documents (article 9 paragraph 1 (lit. b), Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection)).[4] Furthermore, the employer may refuse, restrict or defer the provision of information where the company’s interests override the employee’s, and not disclose personal data to third parties (article 9 paragraph 4, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). The right to information is also not subject to the statute of limitations, and individuals may waive their right to information in advance (article 8 paragraph 6, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). If there are corresponding requests, the employer must generally grant access, or provide a substantiated decision on the restriction of the right of access, within 30 days (article 8 paragraph 5, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection and article 1 paragraph 4, Ordinance to the Federal Act on Data Protection).

Yes, in principle the identity of the complainant, witnesses or sources of information for the investigation can be kept confidential.

On the other hand, if the employer – after having concluded the investigation – brings disciplinary action against the employee, the employer must send a letter to the employee in which the facts are described in detail, objectively and in a precise way, identifying when and where they have taken place, to allow a proper defence for the employee.

Even at this stage, however, the employer has no obligation to provide the employee with the evidence underlying the facts ascribed to him (ie, the employer has no obligation to specify the identity of the individuals through which they gained knowledge of the facts reported in the disciplinary letter).

However, if the employee subsequently challenges the disciplinary sanction before a judge, the employer bears the burden of proof, which may mean having to call the individuals interviewed within the internal investigation to stand as witnesses in court.

Moreover, in case of whistleblowing reports falling within the scope of the WB Decree, the employer is requested to generally keep the whistleblower’s identity confidential (according to art. 12 of the WB Decree). More specifically: (i) if the disciplinary charges are grounded on investigations which are different and additional to the whistleblowing report (although arising as a consequence of the report), the whistleblower’s identity may not be disclosed; (ii) if the disciplinary charges are grounded, in whole or in part, on the whistleblowing report, and knowing the identity of the whistleblower is indispensable for the defendant, such report may be used for the purpose of the disciplinary proceeding only if the whistleblower gives consent to his/her identity being revealed.

Such information can usually be kept confidential in an internal investigation, subject to potential disclosure obligations (see question 25). As indicated in question 10, depending on the nature and subject matter of an investigation, the identity of employees involved and investigative findings shall be shared with an employer on a need-to-know basis only. Specific requirements apply to the protection of the identity of whistleblowers since the Whistleblower Directive was implemented into Dutch law.

Yes.

As in question 10, the identity of the complainant or other employees involved in the investigation may be kept confidential and companies do not have to share their identity with investigated employees. Anonymous complaints are expressly allowed under Spanish law (see question 9).

Companies may have to produce this information and share it with the investigated employees if it is necessary to allow them to defend themselves from disciplinary measures taken against them. Similarly, in the context of litigation, an employee or plaintiff could request a Labour Court to order the company to disclose the details of the investigation.

As mentioned under Question 10, the employer’s duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations) also entails the employer’s duty to respect and protect the personality (including confidentiality and privacy) and integrity of employees (article 328 paragraph 1, Swiss Code of Obligations) and to take appropriate measures to protect them.

However, in combination with the right to be heard and the right to be informed regarding an investigation, the accused also has the right that incriminating evidence is presented to them throughout the investigation and that they can comment on it. For instance, this right includes disclosure of the persons accusing them and their concrete statements. Anonymisation or redaction of such statements is permissible if the interests of the persons incriminating the accused or the interests of the employer override the accused’ interests to be presented with the relevant documents or statements (see question 11; see also article 9 paragraphs 1 and 4, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). However, a careful assessment of interests is required, and these must be limited to what is necessary. In principle, a person accusing another person must take responsibility for their information and accept criticism from the person implicated by the information provided.[1]

Yes, in principle, NDAs can be used to keep the fact and substance of an investigation confidential, even if it is not strictly necessary (and not often done in our experience).

Yes, NDAs can be used for this purpose. However, employers in the Netherlands often rely on general confidentiality obligations that the relevant employee already has to adhere to vis-à-vis their employer, for example in the employment agreement or collective labour agreement, if applicable. It is good practice to reiterate the confidential nature of any interview and its contents, and the existence of the investigation as such, to avoid any alleged confusion as to the confidential nature of investigative procedures later on.

Yes, but it may not stop the disclosure of information at the request of relevant law enforcement authorities.

Yes. NDAs are the preferred instrument to ensure that employees conducting the investigation, as well as those who participate as witnesses or collaborators, will keep the enquiry and its existence confidential.

In addition to the above-mentioned statutory confidentiality obligations, separate non-disclosure agreements can be signed. In an internal investigation, the employee should be expressly instructed to maintain confidentiality.

In general, from an employment law perspective, workplace investigations made by corporate departments (eg, HR and legal counsel who do not operate in their function as lawyers) are not covered by privilege. Generally speaking, privilege covers correspondence and conversations between lawyers.

In defensive criminal law investigations, legal privilege applies.

If an attorney is engaged to provide legal advice or representation in respect of the (subject matter of the) investigation and as such also conducts (part of) the investigation, work products prepared by such an attorney will typically be subject to the legal privilege. Such work products may include, for example, interview minutes, investigation reports, investigation updates, attorney-client correspondence on the investigation, and legal advice rendered in connection with the (subject matter of the) investigation.

In general, findings made and documents established during an internal investigation, including the report thereof, are not covered by privilege per se. It can be claimed that they are covered by the employer’s commercial secrecy, but this secrecy is not very well protected from requests of law enforcement authorities. Hence, if prosecuting authorities find a report of an internal investigation or other documents established during an investigation relevant for criminal proceedings, they can ask for them. If they are not produced voluntarily, a search can be performed.

Legal privilege will, on the other hand, cover an internal investigation if it is entrusted to an independent lawyer. Specifically, client-attorney privilege will cover all documents that are established during the investigation by a lawyer.

Under Polish law there is no distinction between legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. Hence, legal privilege will cover the documentation of the internal investigation led by a lawyer regardless of whether the lawyer’s involvement is for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or because of ongoing or contemplated litigation.

As explained above, investigation materials are not protected by privilege per se. To protect the confidentially of these materials, it is advisable to enter into NDAs with the employees involved in the investigation.

As outlined above, all employees generally have the right to know whether and what personal data is being or has been processed about them (article 8 paragraph 1, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection; article 328b, Swiss Code of Obligations).

The employer may refuse, restrict or postpone the disclosure or inspection of internal investigation documents if a legal statute so provides, if such action is necessary because of overriding third-party interests (article 9 paragraph 1, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection) or if the request for information is manifestly unfounded or malicious. Furthermore, a restriction is possible if overriding the self-interests of the responsible company requires such a measure and it also does not disclose the personal data to third parties. The employer or responsible party must justify its decision (article 9 paragraph 5, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection).[1]

The scope of the disclosure of information must, therefore, be determined by carefully weighing the interests of all parties involved in the internal investigation.

In principle no, because the investigations’ interviews should only deal with the collection of data/or information and not have any disciplinary or accusatory purpose.

However, if the investigation leads to a disciplinary procedure, the employee – under article 7 of the Workers’ Statute – has the right to ask for a meeting to present his or her justification and, on that occasion, to be assisted by a trade union representative. Employees sometimes ask to be assisted by a lawyer and companies usually accept, as a standard practice.

In defensive criminal law investigations, if the employee is suspected of having committed a crime, he or she must be interviewed with the assistance of a criminal lawyer.

All parties involved in the investigation have the right to a fair hearing. How this is embedded in the investigation should be laid down in the protocol drawn up at the start. When the employee, and others involved, receive an invitation for an interview in the context of an investigation, this invitation should include whether or not the employee has the right to bring legal representation to the interview. Given the unequal relationship between employer and employee, this will most likely be the case.

This is not regulated by law and it depends on internal procedures or practice at a given working establishment. As a rule, the participation of third parties or proxies is neither a recognised practice nor recommended (according to the principle that the fewer people participate in the investigation, the easier it is to determine the circumstances of the case, the so-called need-to-know rule). However, in certain situations it should be permissible for a proxy (eg, a lawyer) to participate in a meeting with a subject.

A workplace investigation under Spanish law is a fact-finding exercise and not a disciplinary procedure. For this reason, employees are not entitled to representation during an investigation (it is not even necessary to inform them about the enquiry).

If the investigated employees are made aware of the investigation (eg, because they will be interviewed or questioned), then it is good practice to allow them to be accompanied by external counsel or an employee representative. This would reduce the risk that employees would claim that they were under duress during the interview, or that they challenge the validity of the evidence obtained by the company.

In the case of an employee involved in an internal investigation, a distinction must be made as to whether the employee is acting purely as an informant or whether there are conflicting interests between the company and the employee involved. If the employee is acting purely as an informant, the employee has, in principle, no right to be accompanied by their own legal representative.[1]

However, if there are conflicting interests between the company and the employee involved, when the employee is accused of any misconduct, the employee must be able to be accompanied by their own legal representative. For example, if the employee's conduct might potentially constitute a criminal offence, the involvement of a legal representative must be permitted.[2] Failure to allow an accused person to be accompanied by a legal representative during an internal investigation, even though the facts in question are relevant to criminal law, raises the question of the admissibility of statements made in a subsequent criminal proceeding. The principles of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code cannot be undermined by alternatively collecting evidence in civil proceedings and thus circumventing the stricter rules applicable in criminal proceedings.[3]

In general, it is advisable to allow the involvement of a legal representative to increase the willingness of the employee involved to cooperate.

Generally speaking, a workplace investigation does not require the involvement of a trade union (on the assumption that no specific union agreement has been reached at a company level to entitle trade unions to specific forms of consultation or involvement in workplace investigations, which is not common).

According to section 4 of the Workers’ Statute, as stated above, the involvement of the trade union is necessary regarding the installation and use of specific equipment (such as cameras, switchboards, software) that potentially allows the employer to remotely monitor working activity, and which can be done only with prior agreement of the unions (or authorised by the labour inspectorate).  The union agreement must be made before the installation of the system, and therefore would normally be already in place when an investigation starts.

Pursuant to the WB Decree (Art. 4), union representatives (or external unions) should be “heard” before the employer activates a WB reporting channel[1].

There is, in principle, no role for the works council in an "isolated or single" internal investigation. When it comes to structural forms of employee monitoring to measure behaviour (such as video surveillance), the proposed decision to implement such a monitoring system in principle requires the prior approval of the works council.

In addition, according to the Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers,  an employer who is not obliged to set up a works council needs the consent of more than half of the employees when adopting the internal reporting procedure under theAct, unless the substance of the procedure has already been laid down in a collective bargaining agreement.

There is no such obligation, unless it is provided for in an internal procedure or, for example, in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. It is neither a recognised practice nor recommended that such persons participate in the investigation.

However, in the event of violations that justify the termination of an employment contract with the employee, the employer should consult with that employee’s union about their intention to immediately terminate any employment contract concluded with that person or to terminate, with notice, the employment contract agreed with him or her for an indefinite term, or apply for consent to terminate the employment contract with an employee who is protected by a union.

As explained in question 15, employees are not entitled to representation during an investigation. However, if a disciplinary procedure starts as a result of the investigation, employee representatives may be entitled to be informed of the disciplinary procedure and its outcome.

The degree and timing of when employee representatives must be involved will depend on several factors such as:

• the employee’s affiliation to a union;
• if the employee is an employee representative;
• the seriousness of the potential sanction to be imposed; and
• the information rights that the applicable collective bargaining agreement acknowledges regarding employee representatives.

In general, works councils and trade unions are not very common in Switzerland and there are no statutory rules that would provide a works council or trade union a right to be informed or involved in an ongoing internal investigation. However, respective obligations might be foreseen in an applicable collective bargaining agreement, internal regulations or similar.

According to the law, there is no other specific kind of support other than what is mentioned above.  

The employer can offer employees to be accompanied by another person, or by legal counsel, especially if the outcomes of the investigation could have consequences for their employment.

They may be supported by, for example, allowing an alternative work environment (eg, remote work to avoid direct contact with people involved in the case). Depending on circumstances of the case, this solution will be offered to the subject or the victim. However, it is important that such actions do not infringe the rights of other people (eg, the subject itself).

Employees may also be sent on leave (by a unilateral decision of the employer – if possible under currently binding law provisions) or the parties to an employment contract may mutually agree to use such leave. Moreover, if they employer thinks it is necessary, they may assign the employee to another job for a period not exceeding three months (only if it does not result in a reduction in the employee’s remuneration and corresponds to the employee’s qualifications).

Also, depending on the employer’s decision – psychological or even legal assistance can be provided by the employer to a whistleblower or a victim.

For the reasons outlined in question 15, companies sometimes choose to voluntarily provide support to employees involved in the investigation (to ensure that evidence was lawfully obtained during the interview and is valid).

For investigated employees, one available support mechanism is for the company to cover the legal fees of an external counsel during the investigation or to offer to involve employee representatives. Reassurance may be provided to witnesses by guaranteeing, in writing, that their involvement in the investigation will be kept confidential and will not result in a detriment.

The employer does not generally need to provide specific support for employees that are subject to an internal investigation. The employer may, however, allow concerned employees to be accompanied by a trusted third party such as family members or friends.[1] These third parties will need to sign separate non-disclosure agreements before being involved in the internal investigation.

In addition, a company may appoint a so-called lawyer of confidence who has been approved by the employer and is thus subject to professional secrecy. This lawyer will not be involved in the internal investigation but may look after the concerned employees and give them confidential advice as well as inform them about their rights and obligations arising from the employment relationship.[2]

If further misconduct (unrelated to the investigation matters) is revealed, the company may start a new investigation.

Furthermore, even if the employee has a contractual duty to provide the information requested by the employer, one limit to this principle could be, for example, self-incriminating statements of the employee acting as a witness. However, if an employee nevertheless makes self-incriminating statements, the company could decide to start a new investigation.

If the investigation yields unrelated matters, the employer will need to decide whether such matters should be followed up in the same or a separate investigation. If such matters include new allegations against an employee that are already involved in the investigation, the employer should, before interviewing (or at the start of such an interview) inform the implicated employees of the relevant new allegations that are the subject of the investigation.

It depends on the circumstances of the revealed issue and the employer’s compliance culture. Normally, if a new issue is revealed during the investigation, it should be analysed and investigated if appropriate.

The issue with revealing unrelated matters to the investigation is that it may jeopardise the entire enquiry. If the unrelated matters are private or the disclosure is construed as a breach of employees’ fundamental rights, then the materials gathered during the investigation could be considered to be unlawfully obtained and would not be admitted as evidence in court.

Moreover, the employee could seek damages and a fine could be imposed on the company for breaching its employee’s rights.

Finally, if unrelated matters are revealed, it could be a clear sign that the company has failed to conduct a diligent investigation and use the least intrusive means available to it (see question 1). One of the reasons to minimise the number of employees conducting the investigation (see question 4) is to reduce damages if matters unrelated to the investigation are revealed.

There are no regulations in this regard in the Swiss employment law framework. However, in criminal proceedings, the rules regarding accidental findings apply (eg, article 243, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code for searches and examinations or article 278, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code for surveillance of post and telecommunications). In principle, accidental findings are usable, with the caveat of general prohibitions on the use of evidence.

Generally speaking, grievances from the employee do not per se automatically entail an interruption of the investigation. This conclusion, however, should be double-checked on a case-by-case basis, depending on what kind of grievance the employee under investigation raises, and on the potential effect of that grievance (if grounded): for example, should the grievance concern alleged unlawful processing of personal data, the employer could consider suspending the investigation while checking if the grievance has grounds, to avoid collecting data that cannot be used.

Grievances may be raised “internally” vis-à-vis the employer, possibly through procedures regulated by internal policies or codes (including, for example, whistleblowing procedures), if any, or brought to external authorities (which, depending on the kind of issue, could be a labour court, the Data Privacy Authority, law enforcement authorities, etc).

There are a lot of possibilities for grievances that employees can raise during an investigation. A grievance, for instance, could be that a certain person is not interviewed, while the employee wanted this person to be interviewed in order to have a thorough investigation. In such a case the investigator needs to assess this grievance.

There is no general rule how to react to a grievance and there is also no general obligation to respond to a grievance. There needs to be a case by case assessment based on which further action is or isn't needed.

It depends on the internal policies in force in the organisation. Most often, it constitutes the basis for separate proceedings.

Spanish law does not regulate grievance processes and most companies do not have an internal grievance procedure. The only way in which an employee can formally challenge an investigation is by filing a lawsuit or lodging a claim with the Labour Inspectorate (see question 5).

To the extent that the company can show that the investigation is unrelated to the complaint (ie, that the investigation is not retaliation for filing the complaint), the claim should be seen as neutral from the perspective of the enquiry.

In the context of private internal investigations, grievances initially raised by the employee do not usually have an impact on the investigation.

However, if the employer terminates the employment contract due to a justified legal complaint raised by an employee, a court might consider the termination to be abusive and award the employee compensation in an amount to be determined by the court but not exceeding six months’ pay for the employee (article 336 paragraph 1 (lit. b) and article 337c paragraph 3, Swiss Code of Obligations). Furthermore, a termination by the employer may be challenged if it takes place without good cause following a complaint of discrimination by the employee to a superior or the initiation of proceedings before a conciliation board or a court by the employee (article 10, Federal Act on Gender Equality).

Although there are no specific rules stating an investigation must be suspended if the employee under investigation goes off sick, practically speaking, this may slow down the process. Indeed, the employer would not be in the position to “force” the employee, while he or she is absent from work, to physically attend meetings, although they may ask for the employee’s availability to attend remote interviews (eg, via videoconference).

There is case law regarding an employee’s sickness during a disciplinary procedure (i.e. the procedure described above in point 3): according to certain rulings, if an employee, as per his or her rights, asks to submit an oral defence, but then falls sick, this does not prevent the employer from completing the procedure (and taking disciplinary action), unless the employee proves that his or her sickness prevents him or her from physically attending the meeting (being said that, above all if the procedure ends with a dismissal, a case-by-case analysis on how to manage such situations is highly recommended).

If the employee under investigation goes off sick during the investigation, they will generally be treated as a regular employee on sick leave, meaning they are entitled to continued salary payment and that both employer and employee have a reintegration obligation. This entails regular consults with the company doctor to determine how recovery progresses and when the employee can return to work. If the employer suspects that the employee is merely calling in sick to delay the investigation and such suspicion is not confirmed by the company doctor, the employer can ask the Employees Insurance Agency (UWV) to give a second opinion. When it is determined that the employee is in fact fit for work, the employer can oblige the employee to return to work and cooperate with the investigation. If the employee fails to comply, the employer can – after due warning – suspend the employee's salary payment.

This may prolong the investigation, as the employee may be unable to participate for a time (if the employee is not able to work, in many cases he or she will not be able to participate in proceedings that requires some level of engagement and psychophysical ability). Also, an employee is protected against termination of an employment contract with notice during sick leave. During such a period, the employer may only terminate his or her employment contract without notice (with immediate effect).

Like in the case of grievances (see question 19), the deciding factor will be assessing whether sick leave is related to the investigation or not.

If there is no link between the investigation and the sick leave, then the leave is not relevant from the point of view of the investigation. However, if the sick leave was a result of the investigation (for instance, an employee taking sick leave due to anxiety related to the investigation), then the convenience of pursuing the investigation or of temporarily suspending it should be evaluated to avoid any liability for the company.

The time spent on the internal investigation by the employee should be counted as working time[1]. The general statutory and internal company principles on sick leave apply. Sick leave for which the respective employee is not responsible must generally be compensated (article 324a paragraph 1 and article 324b, Swiss Code of Obligations). During certain periods of sick leave (blocking period), the employer may not ordinarily terminate the employment contract; however, immediate termination for cause remains possible.

The duration of the blocking period depends on the employee's seniority, amounting to 30 days in the employee's first year of service, 90 days in the employee's second to ninth year of service and 180 days thereafter (article 336c paragraph 1 (lit. c), Swiss Code of Obligations).

Generally speaking, internal investigations and those performed by external authorities are autonomous.

In addition, there are no general rules under which the employer must wait for the completion of a criminal investigation before completing its investigation and taking disciplinary action; if the employer believes it has sufficient grounds and evidence to take disciplinary action, it does not have to wait.

That being said, criminal investigations – given the wider investigation powers that public prosecutors or regulators have – may help to gather further evidence on the matter. From a practical point of view, the employer may decide to suspend (with pay) the employee apending the outcome of the criminal investigation, although this option must be evaluated carefully, given the potentially long duration of criminal proceedings, and the fact that the employer normally would not be in a position to access the documents and information about the criminal investigation (unless the company is somehow involved in the proceeding).

Lastly, in very general terms, police or public prosecutors have broad investigatory powers during criminal investigations, which could in certain circumstances make it compulsory for an employer to share evidence (but a case-by-case analysis is necessary regarding specific situations). Moreover, public prosecutors usually do not appreciate that, pending criminal proceedings, internal investigations are being conducted, because it can interfere with the criminal investigation.

In case there is a parallel criminal or regulatory investigation usually consultation between the investigators and the authorities takes place. Agreements are then sometimes made about the investigation conducted by / for the employer. In some cases, the authorities will ask to stay the investigation. There is no policy from the government on this topic.

There are situations where the authorities can compel the employer to share evidence. This depends on the exact circumstances of the case. For instance if the employer is the suspect in a criminal case.

It does occur that the authorities are given evidence upon request without the authorities having to order the extradition of evidence.  

They can be run in parallel. It is up to the company whether it informs the authority about the ongoing internal investigation.

Based on our experience in criminal matters, a report from an internal investigation may not necessarily be treated as evidence per se, but as a source of information about the evidence.

According to procedural rules stemming from, for example, the Criminal Procedure Code, the authorities can demand to see evidence and documents in the employer’s possession that they consider relevant to the conducted proceedings and their subject matter.

Criminal or regulatory investigations may (and usually do) run in parallel to workplace investigations.

There is no need to stay the internal investigation and, in practice, this normally is not possible or advisable considering the substantially longer timeframe of criminal or regulatory investigations (which can extend for several months or years).

The police or a regulator may request a company to share any relevant information that it might have on the facts being reviewed by them. However, the company’s obligation to provide that information would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the information being requested (eg, whether it is sensitive to the business, such as trade secrets or internal correspondence) and the grounds to do so (if the police or regulator have a search warrant issued by a court or not).

The actions of the employer may carry through to a subsequent state proceeding. First and foremost, any prohibitions on the use of evidence must be considered. Whereas in civil proceedings the interest in establishing the truth must merely prevail for exploitation (article 152 paragraph 2, Swiss Civil Procedure Code), in criminal proceedings, depending on the nature of the unlawful act, there is a risk that the evidence may not be used (see question 27 and article 140 et seq, Swiss Civil Procedure Code).

If the outcome of the investigation does not lead to a disciplinary procedure, there is no specific obligation for the employer regarding this.

However, to a certain extent, under privacy laws, the employee may exercise his or her right of access to information strictly related to him or her, arising from the investigation (which is, however, a wider privacy issue to be assessed under the GDPR.)

There are no statutory requirements as to employee feedback in internal investigations. The principle of due care requires an employer to typically confront implicated persons with any allegations that concern them; and provide a draft report on their interviews for feedback, if the investigative findings will form the basis of disciplinary measures. It is good practice to also inform an employee under investigation once the investigation is closed.

He or she must be given feedback about follow-up actions that were undertaken, or reasons why the follow-up actions were not undertaken.

In any case – the feedback must be adapted to the circumstances of each case so as not to reveal too many details or infringe the other interested parties’ rights.

Employees under investigation are not entitled to be informed about the investigation or its outcome. As set out above (see question 11), an employee would have a right to be informed about the outcome of an investigation if the employer takes any disciplinary actions as a consequence of the enquiry.

The reason to disclose the details of the investigation is to allow the employee to adequately defend him or herself from the alleged breaches.

Workplace investigations often result in an investigation report that is intended to serve as the basis for any measures to be taken by the company's decisionmakers.

The employee's right to information based on article 8, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection also covers the investigation report, provided that the report and the data contained therein relate to the employee.[1] In principle, the employee concerned is entitled to receive a written copy of the entire investigation report free of charge (article 8 paragraph 5, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection and article 1 et seq, Ordinance to the Federal Act on Data Protection). Redactions may be made where the interests of the company or third parties so require, but they are the exception and must be kept to a minimum.[2]

There is no general obligation of the employee to share an investigation report with the employee: only if and when disciplinary action is brought against the employee, the latter must be informed precisely of the allegations (but, once again, without being entitled to review the investigation report). In court, employees may ask for an exhibition of documents, including the investigation report, if not already filed by the employer, to use in its defence (but such request is not necessarily automatically granted by the court, as certain requirements must be met.

Employers are typically not required to share the investigation report with implicated persons or other employees involved in an investigation. Depending on the nature and subject of the investigation, the principle of due care may require an employer to share (draft) investigative findings before concluding on such findings.

It does not need to be shared with the employees at all. It may be shared only to the extent such a disclosure will not violate any law, including personal data protection law or personal rights.

Since workplace investigations are not regulated in Spain, there are no clear rules as to the amount of information on the investigation that would need to be shared with an employee if the company was compelled to disclose the enquiry (see questions 11 and 22). A good rule of thumb is that an employee should have access to all the information that is relevant to be in a position to oppose the alleged breaches.

Moreover, if the disciplinary measures taken were challenged before a Labour Court – employees in Spain tend to challenge these types of measures – the plaintiff could request the Labour Court to order the company to produce all of the investigation details, including the findings and the full investigation report.

Finally, companies will normally have an interest in producing a report that clearly states the moment in which the fact-finding exercise was concluded and the company had a full picture of the facts. This is because the statute of limitations to sanction employment breaches, which ranges from 10 to 60 days depending on the seriousness of the misconduct, starts to count when the company has a comprehensive view of the events (which would coincide with the date the investigation report was issued).

In principle, there is no obligation to disclose the final investigation report. Disclosure obligations may arise based on data protection law vis-à-vis the persons concerned (eg, the accused). Likewise, there is no obligation to disclose other documents, such as the records of interviews. The employee should be fully informed of the final investigation report, if necessary, with certain redactions (see question 22). The right of the employee concerned to information is comprehensive (ie, all investigation files must be disclosed to him).[1] Regarding publication to other bodies outside of criminal proceedings, the employer is bound by its duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations) and must protect the employee as far as is possible and reasonable.[2]

Upon completion of the investigation, the employer – if misconduct by the employee emerges – may bring disciplinary action against him or her (which may be either dismissal or a “conservative” measure such as an oral or written warning, a fine, or a suspension, within the limits provided under the law and possibly the applicable NCBA).

If a criminal offence by the employee emerges, the employer may also decide to report the crime to the public authorities (see question 25).

A distinction can be made between a non-public reprimand and a public reprimand. A non-public reprimand is a warning from the employer to the employee that certain behaviour by the employee may not be repeated. This is a relatively light measure. The employer can apply this measure to behaviour for which a verbal warning is insufficient or has already been given (more than once). The employer should confirm the reprimand to the employee in writing, so that it forms part of the employee's personnel file. It is important to have an acknowledgement so there is no dispute as to whether the reprimand has reached the employee. Often, the letter will also mention the consequences if the employee continues to behave in this way, so that the employee is aware of them. The employer then has reasonable grounds to apply a more severe disciplinary measure, such as suspension or dismissal, should the behaviour be repeated.

For a public reprimand, the warning is also made known to third parties. This is, therefore, a more severe measure than a non-public reprimand, as the honour and reputation of the employee are affected. A public reprimand must, therefore, be proportionate to the seriousness of the behaviour and will only be possible in the event of a serious offence, for which a non-public warning will not suffice. A public reprimand is also more likely if it is necessary to prevent other employees from engaging in the same behaviour (deterrent effect). Given the impact on the employee, it is important that the employer carefully investigates the facts and allows the employee to tell their side of the story (hearing both sides of the argument). A public reprimand is rarely given.

If the outcome of the investigation is that the employee is culpable, the employer can request that the court dissolves the employment agreement for that reason. The employer will have to show that continuation of the employment agreement is no longer possible. If the court rules that the employee is culpable, the employment agreement will be dissolved, observing the relevant notice period and paying the statutory transition payment. Only if the court rules that the employee has shown serious culpable behaviour, will the notice period not be taken into account and the transition payment will not be due.

If the employee has come into contact with the judicial authorities or is suspected of a criminal offence, but has not been convicted or detained (yet), the employer – when requesting the dissolution of the employment contract – will have to make a plausible case that, based on this suspicion alone, it can no longer be reasonably expected that the employment contract is upheld. This may be the case in a situation where the offence the employee is suspected of has repercussions on the employer, colleagues or customers and relations of the employer. In this situation, the court will assess whether a less drastic measure than dismissal, such as suspension, is sufficient to the interests of the employer.

If there is still no conviction but the employee is unable to perform his or duties due to being detained, the court reviews a request for dissolution in the same way as above. In this case, if the employee's payment of wages is discontinued, justice may already have been done to the employer's interests.

The final stage involves the conviction and detention of the employee. Although the dissolution of the employment contract under section 7:669 (3) under h DCC – which includes conviction and detention – is the most obvious option, it is still necessary to assess whether termination of the employment contract is reasonable because of the employee's conviction and detention. Although the seriousness of the offence, the duration of the detention and how this reflects on the employer are important factors, the court also takes the age, duration of the employment contract and the position of the employee on the labour market into account.

The most far-reaching dismissal method that can be considered is instant dismissal for an urgent reason (section 7:678 paragraph 1 in conjunction with section 7:677 paragraph 1 DCC). According to the case law of the Dutch Supreme Court, the question of whether there are compelling reasons must be answered based on all the circumstances of the case – to be considered together – including the nature and seriousness of what the employer considers to be compelling reasons, the nature and duration of the employment, how the employee performed their duties and the personal circumstances of the employee, such as age and the consequences for the employee of an instant dismissal.

Mere suspicion of a criminal offence will not easily qualify as an urgent reason, as follows from jurisprudence. At the same time, an employer can, instead of criminal suspicion as grounds for dismissal, also base its claim on the behaviour that underlies it. If the behaviour of the employee is already factually established, for example, because the employee has disclosed it to their employer or the employer has established it, the employer does not have to wait for the criminal proceedings before dismissing the employee.

It depends on the outcome of the investigation: imposing penalties; reporting to a regulator; notifying a suspected offence or civil claim; termination of an employment contract with or without notice; and changes to the work organisation. Following the investigation, the employer must make some legal, business or HR corrective actions.

After the conclusion of the enquiry, a company may choose to:

• close the investigation without taking any additional action; or
• adopt disciplinary measures against the employee.

These could range from a verbal or written warning to the suspension of work and pay for a set period. Disciplinary dismissals are also possible, but they are reserved for very serious offences.

Note that any disciplinary measure will have to follow the procedures that might be established in the applicable collective bargaining agreement, such as informing employee representatives or following a grievance procedure before adopting the measure.

If the investigation uncovers misconduct, the question arises as to what steps should be taken. Of course, the severity of the misconduct and the damage caused play a significant role. Furthermore, it must be noted that the cooperation of the employee concerned may be of decisive importance for the outcome of the investigation. The possibilities are numerous, ranging, for example, from preventive measures to criminal complaints.[1]

If individual disciplinary actions are necessary, these may range from warnings to ordinary or immediate termination of employment.

Generally speaking, even if the investigation leads to evidence of a criminal offence, the employer does not have to inform public authorities (citizens and private entities do not have an obligation to report crimes they discover). The existence of any obligations to report to regulatory authorities (eg, banking and insurance regulatory authorities) should be investigated on a case-by-case basis.

The internal procedures of the company – as adopted by the company in the framework of legislation on the administrative or quasi-criminal vicarious liability of legal entities – may require the findings to be disclosed to certain internal bodies or committees.

As said above, the police or public prosecutors (and possibly other public authorities) may have, within their investigatory powers, and in certain circumstances, the power to access internal investigation outcomes (but a case-by-case analysis would be necessary).

The fundamental right to a fair hearing entails that the investigation findings must be disclosed to the employee under investigation at least once, so that they are given the opportunity to respond to them. Under Dutch administrative or criminal law, there are no general provisions requiring disclosure of investigative findings to regulators or criminal authorities. Certain specific provisions, however, apply, for example, in reportable incidents at financial institutions or certain HSE incidents that need to be disclosed to relevant regulatory authorities. Regulatory and criminal authorities, however, do have broad investigative powers enabling them to order the provision of data from subjects or involved parties in investigations they are conducting. Such information may also comprise investigation findings and underlying documents, such as interview records. If such interview records are subject to legal privilege (see question 14), they are typically not subject to disclosure to the relevant authorities.

Under Dutch civil law, a party that possesses certain records (such as investigation findings and underlying documents) is generally not required to disclose those to other parties for inspection. Parties are, in principle, not required to share information with third parties, other than relevant authorities (see above).

An exception to this rule is section 843a Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. Under section 843a, a party can be required to produce specific exhibits, if:

• the requesting party has a legitimate interest;
• the request concerns specific and well-defined records or information (ie, no fishing expeditions); and
• the documents pertain to a legal relationship (e.g., a contract or alleged tort; the requested party does not need to be a party to the relevant legal relationship).

If these requirements are met, the requestee should, in principle, disclose the requested information, except for specific exceptions. Such exceptions, which can also be relevant in the context of internal (workplace) investigations, could include confidentiality arrangements and privacy protection, to the extent that this would qualify as a compelling interest. To establish such a compelling interest, the relevant interest should outweigh the requesting party's legitimate interest regarding the requested information. This is a balancing act. Documents that are subject to legal privilege are protected against disclosure.

It depends on the matter. In general, there is no obligation to disclose the report. In some instances, there is an obligation to notify a suspected offence (for example, a terrorist attack or a political assassination). This, however, does not mean there is an obligation to file a report from the internal investigation, but to provide the law enforcement authority with the facts and evidence at the notifier’s disposal. In other instances of criminal offences, for example corruption, there is no obligation to notify law enforcement authorities. Therefore, it is up to the organisation to decide whether it will file a notification for a suspected offence.

At the same time, presenting a report from an internal investigation can constitute an element of defence for an organisation if a regulatory authority initiates proceedings regarding a failure by the organisation to comply with regulatory obligations.

Records of interviews do not need to be produced for the case file provided the law enforcement authority does not ask for them.

Companies may only disclose the outcome of an investigation to employees or officers of the company who are empowered to adopt the measures that are necessary because of the investigation’s results (see question 4).

This disclosure obligation does not extend to authorities: while there is a general obligation to report criminal or administrative offences to the competent authorities, this obligation must be read in line with the companies’ right not to self-report themselves. What a company must not do is cover up, aid or otherwise become an accessory to the offence.

The employer is generally not required to disclose the final report, or the data obtained in connection with the investigation. In particular, the employer is not obliged to file a criminal complaint with the police or the public prosecutor's office.

Exceptions may arise, for example, from data protection law (see question 22) or a duty to release records may arise in a subsequent state proceeding.

Data voluntarily submitted in a proceeding in connection with the internal investigation shall be considered private opinion or party assertion.[1] If the company refuses to hand over the documents upon request, coercive measures may be used under certain circumstances.[2]

The employer would normally keep the outcomes of the investigation for the entire duration of the employment relationship with the involved employee.

After the termination of the employment relationship, it appears reasonable to conclude that the employer would be entitled to retain this information for the time necessary to exercise its defence rights in litigation (taking into account that 10 years is the statute of limitations for contractual liability). Further requirements or restrictions under general privacy laws (and particularly the GDPR) should also be checked.

According to Art. 14 WB Decree, internal and external whistleblowing reports (including related documents) must be kept for as long as necessary for report processing, but no more than five years from the date of transmission of the procedure's final outcome.

The outcomes are usually kept in the records until termination of the employment agreement and only deleted when personal records are deleted.

Neither Polish law nor the Draft Law specifically provide for a mandatory period during which the outcome of the investigation should be kept on the employee’s record.

At the same time, the Draft Law indicates that the register of whistleblowing reports, which should also contain information about follow-up actions undertaken as a result of the report, should be kept for 15 months starting from the end of the calendar year in which the follow-up actions have been completed, or the proceedings initiated by those actions have been terminated.

Also, while determining how long the outcome of an internal investigation should be kept, additional legal considerations can be taken into account, especially data privacy.

The GDPR does not specify precise storage time for personal data. The employer must assess what will be an appropriate time for storage of the data, taking into consideration the necessity of keeping personal data concerning the purpose of the processing in question. Employees' personal data should be kept for the period necessary for the performance of the employment relationship and may be kept for a period appropriate for the statute of limitations for claims and criminal deeds. A longer retention period may result from applicable laws. Following the Regulation of the Minister of Family, Labour and Social Policy on employee documentation, the employer may keep a copy of the notice of punishment and other documents related to the employee’s incurring of disciplinary responsibility in the employee record.

There are different retention periods for the data contained in employee files:

• 10 years if the employee was hired on or after 1 January 2019;
•  if the employment relationship began between 1 January 1999 and 1 January 2019, the retention period is 50 years, but may be reduced to 10 years if the employer provides the Polish Social Insurance Institution with certain mandatory information; and
•  for 50 years if the employee was hired before 1 January 1999. It does not matter whether the person is still working or not.

The outcome of the investigation will contain personal data of the affected employee. For this reason, this information should only be kept for as long as a legal obligation or liability in connection with the information could arise for the company. Since the general statute of limitations for employment liability is one year, this is a good guideline.

In addition to the above, two specific rules apply:

• once the information becomes irrelevant for the purpose for which it was obtained and processed, the information should no longer be stored on the employee’s record or elsewhere; and
• the employees’ information (including those of the reporter and the affected employees) should only be stored in whistleblower systems during the time that is necessary to decide on whether the facts need to be investigated or not and, in any case, for a maximum period of three months.

From an employment law point of view, there is no statute of limitations on the employee's violations. Based on the specific circumstances (eg, damage incurred, type of violation, basis of trust or the position of the employee), a decision must be made as to the extent to which the outcome should remain on the record.

From a data protection point of view, only data that is in the interest of the employee (eg, to issue a reference letter) may be retained during the employment relationship. In principle, stored data must be deleted after the termination of the employment relationship. Longer retention may be justified if rights are still to be safeguarded or obligations are to be fulfilled in the future (eg, data needed regarding foreseeable legal proceedings, data required to issue a reference letter or data in relation to a non-competition clause).[1]

It depends on the kind of error or breach. For example:

• a breach of privacy laws (eg, acquiring data from working instruments in lack of due requirements) would lead to the application of privacy law sanctions (including monetary fines); and
• breach of provisions regarding “remote” control of employees would lead to criminal sanctions and to the inadmissibility, for disciplinary purposes, of the data collected (and thus potentially to the unlawfulness of a dismissal based on such data).

Furthermore, if the employee has suffered damages as a result of the employer’s errors or breaches (and can specifically prove such damages and their amount), the employer may be held liable in court.

The employee can request compensation for violation of the right to a fair hearing or reputational damage. If the employee is suspended during the investigation, , the employee can request the court to order the employer to allow them to resume their work and request rehabilitation.

In termination proceedings (or after the termination of the employment agreement by the employer), the employee can claim an equitable compensation from the employer if the employer has shown serious culpable behaviour. Such compensation, if granted, is usually based on loss of income by the employee due to the behaviour of the employer.

If any untrue allegations were made by an employer against an employee without checking them beforehand, there is a risk that such an employee would claim damages eg, for infringement of personal rights or even filing a private indictment for defamation or outrage.

Certainly, an employer must be aware that one must never behave in a way that, for example, in the employee's opinion, could constitute a form of blackmailing or deprivation of liberty. A problem may also arise when accessing the employee's correspondence, especially when access is made to documents or private correspondence. The Draft Law provides for several criminal offences related to, for example, preventing reporting, using retaliatory measures against a whistleblower or disclosing personal data of a whistleblower).

Errors during an investigation are normally linked to the breach of the employees’ privacy or their personal data rights (see question 1). Breaching these rights might expose employers to:

• Fines from the Labour Inspectorate and the Spanish Data Protection Authority.
• A court awarding damages to the employee.
• Any disciplinary measures adopted by the company as a result of the investigation could be considered null and void.
• The evidenced obtained during the investigation being disregarded by a court.
• In some very serious cases, criminal liability might arise for the individuals who conducted the investigation and breached the employees’ rights.

As there are no specific regulations for internal investigations, the usual legal framework within which the employer must act towards the employee derives from general rules such as the employer's duty of care, the employee's duty of loyalty and the employee's data protection rights.

But, for example, unwarranted surveillance could conceivably result in criminal liability (article 179 et seq, Swiss Criminal Code) for violations of the employee's privacy. Furthermore, errors made by the employer could have an impact on any later criminal proceedings (eg, in the form of prohibitions on the use of evidence).[1]

Evidence obtained unlawfully may only be used in civil proceedings if there is an overriding interest in establishing the truth (article 152 paragraph 2, Swiss Civil Procedure Code). Consequently, in each case, a balance must be struck between the individual’s interest in not using the evidence and in establishing the truth.[2] The question of the admissibility of evidence based on an unlawful invasion of privacy is a sensitive one – admissibility in this case is likely to be accepted only with restraint.[3] Since the parties in civil proceedings do not have any means of coercion at their disposal, it is not necessary, in contrast to criminal proceedings, to examine whether the evidence could also have been obtained by legal means.[4]

Unlawful action by the employer may also have consequences on future criminal proceedings: The prohibitions on exploitation (article 140 et seq, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code) apply a priori only to evidence obtained directly from public authorities. Evidence obtained unlawfully by private persons (ie, the employer) may also be used if it could have been lawfully obtained by the authority and if the interest in establishing the truth outweighs the interest of the individual in not using the evidence.[5] Art. 140 paragraph 1 Swiss Criminal Procure Code remains reserved: Evidence obtained in violation of Art. 140 paragraph 1 Swiss Criminal Procure Code is subject to an absolute ban on the use of evidence (e.g. evidence obtained under the use of torture[6]).[7]