Workplace Investigations
Contributing Editors
Workplace investigations are growing in number, size and complexity. Employers are under greater scrutiny as of the importance of ESG rises. Regulated industries such as finance, healthcare and legal face additional hurdles, but public scrutiny of businesses and how they treat their people across the board has never been higher. Conducting a fair and thorough workplace investigation is therefore critical to the optimal operation, governance and legal exposure of every business.
IEL’s Guide to Workplace Investigations examines key issues that organisations need to consider as they initiate, conduct and conclude investigations in 29 major jurisdictions around the world.
Learn more about the response taken in specific countries or build your own report to compare approaches taken around the world.
Choose countries
Choose questions
Choose the questions you would like answering, or choose all for the full picture.
06. Can co-workers be compelled to act as witnesses? What legal protections do employees have when acting as witnesses in an investigation?
06. Can co-workers be compelled to act as witnesses? What legal protections do employees have when acting as witnesses in an investigation?
Italy
Italy
- at BonelliErede
- at BonelliErede
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.
South Korea
South Korea
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
While there are no laws to compel co-workers to act as witnesses, the company may have internal policies (eg, rules of employment, code of conduct) that require employees to cooperate with company actions such as a workplace investigation. That said, it would be difficult to enforce such policies even if the employee refuses to cooperate (eg, taking disciplinary action against an employee who refuses to act as a witness).
There may be instances when the company is required to provide certain legal protection to employees acting as witnesses in an investigation. For example, if a whistleblower falling under the WPA is required to act as a witness, they would be entitled to legal protections as discussed in question 1. The company may also have internal policies that provide protection to employees acting as witnesses in an investigation.
Sweden
Sweden
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
In general, yes, employees in Sweden have a far-reaching duty of loyalty toward their employers. This includes, among other things, a duty to truthfully answer an employer’s questions and to inform the employer of events that may be of interest to the employer. An employee’s obligation to assist is, however, more limited when assistance would entail self-incrimination.
A person acting as a witness under an investigation governed by the Swedish Whistleblowing Act will be protected by confidentiality. Personal data and details that could reveal the identity of a witness may not be disclosed without authorisation.
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
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]
[1] Nicolas Facincani/Reto Sutter, Interne Untersuchungen: Rechte und Pflichten von Arbeitgebern und Angestellten, published on hrtoday.ch, last visited on 17 June 2022.
[2] Same opinion: Nicolas Facincani/Reto Sutter, Interne Untersuchungen: Rechte und Pflichten von Arbeitgebern und Angestellten, published on hrtoday.ch, last visited on 17 June 2022.
08. Can the employer search employees’ possessions or files as part of an investigation?
08. Can the employer search employees’ possessions or files as part of an investigation?
Italy
Italy
- at BonelliErede
- at BonelliErede
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.
South Korea
South Korea
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
As discussed in question 7, it may be difficult for a company to search an employee’s personal possessions. The company may search and gather electronic data stored in work laptops or company servers, subject to legal requirements and restrictions (eg, obtaining consent).
The PIPA provides specific guidance on the requirements for obtaining consent. Under the PIPA, to collect or use an individual’s personal information, the information holder must be informed of and consent to:
- the purpose of the collection or use;
- the personal information that will be collected;
- the period of retention and use; and
- his or her right to refuse to provide consent and any disadvantages that may result from such refusal.
There are separate requirements for obtaining consent to provide an individual’s personal information to a third party. Also, consent must be obtained separately for the collection, use or provision of sensitive or unique identification information.
Under limited circumstances, personal information may be collected, used, or provided to third parties without obtaining the consent of the information holder. For instance, a company may collect and use personal information without obtaining consent where obtaining the information is necessary to achieve the company’s “legitimate interests”, which clearly exceed the information holder’s right to his or her personal information, and the collection and use are carried out within reasonable bounds. The term “legitimate interests” in this context is generally understood as a concept similar to “justifiable act” under the Criminal Code. The Korean Supreme Court has held that under exceptional circumstances such as the following, the company’s collection and review of employee data may constitute a “justifiable act” under the Criminal Code:
- the company had specific and reasonable suspicion that the employee had committed a crime and the company had an urgent need to verify the facts;
- the scope of the company’s review was limited to the suspected crime through the use of keywords, etc;
- the employee had signed an agreement stating that he or she would not use work computers in an unauthorised manner and that all work products would belong to the company; and
- the company’s review uncovered materials that could be used to verify whether the employee committed the alleged crime.
Sweden
Sweden
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
An employer can search an employee’s personal possessions (eg, handbag, pockets and locker) if the employer has a legitimate interest in a search. This could, for example, include a reasonable suspicion of theft of employer property. Furthermore, an employer may search, but not continually monitor, an employee’s computer and email provided that it is in accordance with GDPR requirements. For the processing to be lawful under the GDPR, the employer has to establish a purpose and a legal basis for the processing of personal data. Furthermore, data subjects must have received information on the legal basis for and purpose of the processing of personal data beforehand. If the data subjects have not received such information, the employer’s right to process their data is limited. However, if the employer has reasonable grounds to believe that trade secrets or similar has been copied and stolen, no such requirements would typically apply.
Investigations into an employee's possessions may, under certain circumstances, also be carried out by the Swedish authorities.
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
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]
[1] Claudia Fritsche, Interne Untersuchungen in der Schweiz: Ein Handbuch für regulierte Finanzinstitute und andere Unternehmen, Zürich/St. Gallen 2013, p. 168.
[2] Claudia Fritsche, Interne Untersuchungen in der Schweiz: Ein Handbuch für regulierte Finanzinstitute und andere Unternehmen, Zürich/St. Gallen 2013, p. 168 et seq.