Workplace Investigations

There are essentially two phases in a workplace investigation: the fact-finding phase and the administrative proceeding.

The fact-finding phase of workplace investigations is usually governed by the internal policies of the employer, save for investigations relating to gender-based sexual harassment in the workplace. Republic Act No. 11313, otherwise known as the Safe Spaces Act, sets the parameters for these kinds of investigations.

Philippine case law recognises the right of an employer to conduct investigations for other acts of misconduct in the workplace in the exercise of its management prerogative. The Supreme Court has held that it is an employer’s right to investigate acts of wrongdoing by employees, and employees involved in such investigations cannot simply claim that employers are out to get them.

After the fact-finding aspect of the investigation, if the employer decides it has sufficient grounds to proceed to full-blown administrative proceedings, it needs to comply with the due process requirements outlined under the Philippine Labor Code. These requirements are:

• a first notice, or notice to explain, informing the employee of the charges against him or her;
• an opportunity for the employee to be heard; and
• a final notice on the outcome of the administrative action.

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.

In the United States, any combination of legislation at the federal, state and local level, as well as judicial opinions and regulatory guidance interpreting those statutes, may impose obligations on relevant employers to undertake a timely internal investigation in response to complaints of workplace misconduct and to promptly implement remedial measures, where appropriate.

An employer’s written policies often also set forth the company’s expectations for how its employees, partners, vendors, consultants or other third parties will conduct themselves in carrying out the business of the company, and these policies may include protocols setting forth the parameters for an investigation in the event of potential non-compliance. Such investigatory roadmaps are often described in, for example, employee handbooks or a company’s policy against discrimination and harassment.

Due to the patchwork nature of employment and related laws, it is not possible to cover every investigation scenario or related legislation in this guide. Employers should instead consult with experienced employment attorneys in their state to ensure compliance with the applicable legal and regulatory regimes. 

Workplace investigations are normally commenced either through a complaint filed by other employees in the workplace or by HR or other representatives of management.

Under the Safe Spaces Act, employers are required to commence an investigation and decide on complaints regarding gender-based sexual harassment, within ten days of the complaint being brought to their attention. For other workplace misconduct, management is given wide discretion regarding the means and method by which the workplace investigation may be carried out.

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]

A workplace investigation is often, although not always, prompted by a complaint of workplace misconduct, usually made directly by the employee who was harmed by the conduct, a third party who witnessed the conduct, or a manager or supervisor who was made aware of the issue and has reporting obligations as a result of his or her role in the organisation. 

It is best practice – and often a legal requirement depending on the applicable state law – for companies to clearly outline a complaint process in their policies and to provide employees who experience, have knowledge of, or witness incidents they believe to violate the company’s policies with one or more options for making a report. Although the specific complaint procedure may vary depending on the size of the organisation, the nature of the business and the type of complaint at issue, many companies provide for (or require) making a report through one of the following channels:

• a company-managed hotline or online equivalent;
•  human resources;
• an affected employee’s supervisor or manager; or
• a member of the legal or compliance department.    

A preventive suspension pending investigation is allowed under the law, provided that the continued employment of the subject of the investigation poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or other employees. Additionally, the period of preventive suspension pending investigation should not last longer than 30 days. However, should the employer wish to extend this period, the employer must pay the employee’s wages and other benefits. The employee is under no obligation to reimburse the amount paid to them during the extension if the employer should, later on, decide to dismiss the employee after the completion of the process.

In practice, the notice of preventive suspension is issued simultaneously with the first notice or the notice to explain after the employer has conducted its fact-finding investigation and has reason to believe that the employee must be held accountable for his or her actions.

Since placing an employee under preventive suspension requires the existence of a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or other employees, some employers opt to place the employee or employees involved on agreed paid leave. This will allow the employer to conduct an unhampered workplace investigation while the investigated employee is still able to receive his or her full salary during this period. The exact period of paid leave may be agreed upon by the employer and the employee, but ideally it should not last for more than thirty days.

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.

Yes. An employer may suspend the subject of an internal investigation with full pay pending the outcome of an investigation. However, this measure should be used sparingly, for example in cases where an employee has been accused of gross misconduct or where it is the only means of separating the alleged victim of harassment from the accused to prevent continued harassment. As an alternative means of separating the victim from the accused, an employer can consider interim measures such as a schedule change, transfer or leave of absence for the alleged victim with his or her consent (employers should take care not to take any action that could be perceived as retaliatory against the complainant – even if well-intentioned – including involuntarily transferring him or her or forcing a leave of absence).

Where an employer does determine that suspending the subject of an investigation is warranted while the company carries out its investigation, it should provide him or her with a written statement briefly outlining the reason for the suspension and the estimated date the employee will be advised of the investigation outcome and his or her final employment status.

Under the Safe Spaces Act, an employer should create an independent internal mechanism or a committee on decorum and investigation to investigate and address complaints of gender-based sexual harassment, which should:

• adequately represent the management, the employees from the supervisory rank, the rank-and-file employees, and the union, if any;
• designate a woman as its head and no less than half of its members should be women;
• be composed of members who are impartial and not connected or related to the alleged perpetrator;
• investigate and decide on the complaints within 10 days or less upon receipt thereof;
• observe due process;
• protect the complainant from retaliation; and
• guarantee confidentiality to the greatest extent possible.

For other types of offences, it is the prerogative of management as to who will conduct the investigation and how it will be conducted, provided the proceedings remain impartial.

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.

While every internal investigation should be carried out promptly, thoroughly and in a well-documented manner, employers should appoint one individual or team of individuals to oversee all complaints regardless of how they are received. Doing so helps to ensure that all allegations are documented, reviewed and assigned for investigation as consistently as practicable.

Once a complaint is received and recorded, the company should undertake an initial triage process to determine:

• the risk of the alleged misconduct from a reputational, operational and legal perspective;
• who is best suited to conduct an investigation based on the nature of the alleged misconduct and the perceived risk level (potential candidates may include members of human resources, legal or compliance departments, or outside counsel); and
• a plan for investigating the factual allegations raised in the complaint.

The appropriate investigator should be able to investigate objectively without bias (ie, the investigator cannot have a stake in the outcome, a personal relationship with the involved parties and the outcome of the investigation should not directly affect the investigator’s position within the organisation); has skills that include prior investigative knowledge and a working knowledge of employment laws; has strong interpersonal skills to build a rapport with the parties involved and to be perceived as neutral and fair; is detail-oriented; has the right temperament to conduct interviews; can be trusted to maintain confidentiality; is respected within the organisation; and can act as a credible witness.

At this triage stage, an employer may also wish to use the information collected from the complaint to proactively identify potential patterns or systemic issues at an individual, divisional or corporate level and react accordingly. For example, if a company receives a complaint against a supervisor for harassing conduct and that same individual has already been the subject of previous complaints, the company should consider whether it may be appropriate to engage outside counsel to carry out a new investigation to bring objectivity and lend credibility to the review – even if the prior complaints were not ultimately substantiated following thorough internal investigations. Similarly, the engagement of outside counsel is often appropriate where a complaint involves alleged misconduct on the part of a company’s senior management or board members.

There is generally no legal remedy for an employee to stop a workplace investigation as it is the prerogative of management to conduct it. Nevertheless, if the employee alleges violation of any specific law or contractual provision in the conduct of the investigation, the employee may be able to seek judicial relief for violation of the law or contract, and ask for interim relief.

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, private sector employees have considerably fewer rights vis-à-vis a company-led internal investigation than their public sector counterparts. This is because many US states are “at will” employment states, which means that, absent an employment contract that provides otherwise, an employee can be terminated for any reason not prohibited by statute or public policy. Depending on the specific circumstances, however, an employee who is the subject of an internal investigation could bring or threaten legal action according to contract or tort principles to stop an investigation. An employee may also challenge an investigation because it was conducted in violation of certain federal, state or foreign laws, for example, the use of polygraph tests in violation of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act or foreign data privacy laws.

Neither the employer nor the employee subject of the investigation can compel co-workers to act as a witness. There is no specific law for whistleblowers or employees who act as witnesses during an investigation. Nevertheless, the employer can have its own whistleblower policy.

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]

Yes. The investigator is empowered to decide which witnesses should be interviewed as a part of the fact-gathering process. In addition to interviewing the complainant, the investigation should include individual interviews with other involved parties, including the subject of the complaint, as well as individuals who may have observed the alleged conduct or may have other relevant knowledge, including supervisors or other employees. Many companies’ code of conduct, employee handbook or similar policy set forth the requirement for current employees to cooperate fully in any investigation by the company or its external advisors and also provide that failure to do so could result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

In the absence of contractual protections, employees may have no legal right to refuse to submit to an interview, even if their answers tend to incriminate them. That being said, when acting as a witness in an internal investigation, a current employee is usually afforded similar legal protections as the subject of an investigation, including the right to oppose unreasonable intrusions into his or her privacy and unreasonable workplace searches. For example, certain state laws prohibit an employer from questioning an employee regarding issues that serve no business purpose.

The procedure for gathering physical evidence is governed primarily by company policy. Nevertheless, the Data Privacy Act of the Philippines protects all data subjects from unlawful processing of their personal information without consent.

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.

Documents and instruments that set out a company’s policies (eg, employee handbooks, code of conduct or other written guidelines) often contain provisions regarding employee data and document collection, workplace searches, communication monitoring, privacy, and confidentiality. As discussed below, state and federal constitutional, statutory and common law – and in some cases foreign data privacy regimes – may provide additional protections to protect employees from an unwarranted or unreasonable invasion of privacy during an internal investigation.

Subject to the employees’ reasonable expectation of privacy, gathering physical evidence within the premises of the workplace and through company-issued property has been upheld to be legally permissible in pursuit of the employer’s right to conduct work-related investigations. The search, however, should be limited to the alleged acts complained of and must not be used as a fishing expedition to find incriminating information about the erring employee.

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]

As there is no unified data protection regime, privacy protections stem from a patchwork of federal and state privacy laws which impose limits on the extent to which an employer can collect information from its employees in connection with an internal investigation. Whether specific conduct violates an employee’s rights is a very fact-specific inquiry requiring the application of relevant state laws and a regulatory regime. 

In most circumstances, an employer is free to conduct searches of its workplace and computer systems in the course of investigating potential wrongdoing. Such searches are generally not protected by personal privacy laws because workspaces, computer systems and company-issued electronic devices are often considered company property. Many companies explicitly address this in written corporate policies and employment agreements. Employees who use their own electronic devices for work should be aware that work-related data stored on those devices is generally considered to belong to the employer (as a matter of best practice, employers should generally prohibit or at least advise employees against using personal devices for work and to maintain separate work devices, where possible).

These broad investigatory powers notwithstanding, the ability of an employer to conduct searches in furtherance of an internal investigation is not unlimited. For example, if an employer seeks to obtain or review work-related data from an employee’s personal device, the employer must be careful to exclude any personal data. Certain states also prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to disclose passwords or other credentials to his or her personal email and social networking accounts, but permit an employer to require employees to share the content of personal online accounts as necessary during an interview while investigating employee misconduct.

Since there is no specific law that governs whistleblowing, matters that involve whistleblowing will be governed by company policy.

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.

Several federal, state, and local employment laws prohibit retaliation against employees who come forward with complaints or participate in corporate investigations. Employees who possess information regarding corporate misconduct may also be considered whistleblowers protected from retaliation under federal and state whistleblower laws, including but not limited to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.

An employee generally does not need to show that he or she was terminated or demoted to bring a retaliation claim; other actions on the part of the employer may qualify if they could be seen to discourage employees from raising complaints. To protect against a potential retaliation claim, employers should make clear at the outset of an investigation that retaliation will not be tolerated and require the complaining employee (and potentially his or her manager) to bring any instances of retaliation to the investigator’s attention immediately.

Since the right to investigate ultimately belongs to the employer, it may impose strict confidentiality obligations upon the individuals involved, not only to ensure unhampered investigation proceedings but also and more importantly for the protection of the company and employees involved.

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]

Information arising from the initial complaint, interviews and records should be kept as confidential as practically possible while still permitting a thorough investigation. Although an employer must maintain confidentiality to the best of its ability, it is often not possible to keep confidential the identity of the complainant or all information gathered through the investigation process. An employer should therefore not promise absolute confidentiality to any party involved in an internal investigation, including the complainant. The investigator should instead explain at the outset to the complaining party and all individuals involved that information gathered will be maintained in confidence to the extent possible, but that some information may be revealed to the accused or potential witnesses on a need-to-know basis to conduct a thorough and effective investigation.

During the fact-finding stage of the investigation, the employees under investigation are not generally entitled to information concerning the conduct of the investigation. It is the prerogative of management to involve the employee under investigation during the fact-finding stage. When, however, the employer determines that an administrative disciplinary process must proceed, the employee’s right to due process attaches. As such, due process includes the right to be informed of the grounds relied upon by the employer and the opportunity to be heard. The first notice or notice to explain should specifically inform the employee of the charge against him or her.

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).

The investigator must disclose to the employee under investigation the purpose of the investigation and, where the investigator is in-house or outside counsel, he or she should disclose that the company is the client.

The identity of the complainant, witnesses and sources of information may be kept confidential under the employer’s policies.

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]

In general, except as provided above, depending on the seriousness of the complaint and investigation, the only persons who should be aware of it are the relevant individual in human resources or legal, and where different, the persons assigned to investigate. Although it may not be feasible to maintain absolute confidentiality in conducting an investigation depending on the nature of the allegations, investigators should exercise discretion at all times and, where possible, avoid identifying complainants, the subject of the investigation or witnesses by name where it is not necessary, and where doing so could be detrimental to the fact-finding process.

The practice of stipulating matters to ensure adherence to confidentiality is not uncommon. As such, NDAs are executed as a means of added protection for both the company and the employees involved.

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.

This is a fact-specific inquiry that depends on the specific circumstances and laws of the relevant state. In general, NDAs are frowned upon but can be used to an extent to keep certain facts and the substance of an investigation confidential. NDAs can never prevent employees from assisting in official agency investigations, however. NDAs also cannot lawfully prohibit employees from officially reporting illegal conduct by their employer.

The employer’s internal policy can indicate that investigation materials must be kept confidential.

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.

For legal privilege to apply, a primary purpose of the investigation should be to provide legal advice to the company, including concerning non-lawyers working at the counsel’s direction, and legal privilege likely will not apply to internal investigations performed as part of the ordinary course of business or where the investigation is required by a state or federal regulatory regime (eg, post-incident investigations of operations governed by OSHA’s Process Safety Management Standards). It is, therefore, important to contemporaneously document the scope and purpose of the investigation and not risk waiving privilege by sharing privileged materials with unnecessary third parties.

Whereas attorney-client privilege includes only communications between an attorney and the client, work-product privilege is broader and includes materials prepared or collected by persons other than the attorney with an eye towards impending litigation. Examples of potential work products produced by attorneys in the context of an investigation include investigative work plans, interview outlines, memoranda summarising witness interviews and investigative reports.

As a practical matter, employees should be aware that communications with other employees or colleagues regarding the investigation are not privileged regardless of whether the colleague is also involved in the investigation or represented by the same counsel. Even if an employee believes he or she is sharing attorney communications with other employees who need to know the attorney’s advice and who also have attorney-client privilege with the same counsel because he or she is involved or implicated in the investigation and also represented by company counsel, it is always prudent to refrain from sharing privileged information. If an attorney’s communication is shared beyond those who need to know, attorney-client privilege may be destroyed.

Since the fact-finding phase of the investigation is considered to be a preliminary step before the commencement of the administrative disciplinary process, an employee’s right to representation does not attach.

However, when the administrative disciplinary process commences, the employee has the right to have legal representation during the investigation. While no law requires the employee to have counsel present during the investigation, the employee has the right, if he or she chooses, to be advised by counsel or have legal representation.

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.

Employees generally have no automatic right to counsel in connection with an internal investigation, unless contractually provided for under the terms of an employment agreement. Nonetheless, employees may choose to retain counsel, particularly if they face liability.

Except if provided expressly under a collective bargaining agreement, the union does not have the right to be involved in the investigation. Given that the investigation is between the employee and the company, it follows that the union does not have any right to participate in the investigation proceedings.

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.

Employers generally have no obligation to inform employees of their right to union representation or to ask if they would like a union representative present during the interview. Union employees may insist, however, that a union representative attend any investigatory interview that could lead to the employee’s punishment, although the union representative may not interfere with the interview.

Since the conduct of an investigation is different from the administrative disciplinary process, management is given wide latitude for the exercise of the same.

After the employer determines that there are sufficient grounds to support the conduct of a formal administrative process, employees that are the subject of an administrative hearing should be allowed to present evidence to support his or her statements. Further, the employee may also provide affidavits of his or her co-employees consistent with his or her testimony.

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]

The employer’s counsel should provide an Upjohn warning at the start of any interview, and delivery of the warning should be documented by a note-taker. An Upjohn warning is the notice an attorney (in-house or outside counsel) provides a company employee to inform the employee that the attorney represents only the company and not the employee individually.

If unrelated matters are revealed because of a workplace investigation, the employer may look into the new matter and then determine whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with an administrative disciplinary process for the new matter.

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.

Where new issues or claims arise during an ongoing workplace investigation, the investigator should discuss with in-house counsel whether the new issues or claims should be separately investigated and if so, by whom, or if instead those new issues or claims are sufficiently related to the current review that they can be investigated in parallel and incorporated into the ongoing fact-gathering process. 

If an employee under investigation raises a grievance during an ongoing investigation, the employer must ensure that the employee under investigation is treated reasonably and fairly. Thus, the employer must also give attention to the complaint made by the employee and determine if there are reasonable grounds for the concern of the employee. If the employer determines the validity of the grievance raised, the employer may conduct a separate investigation for it.

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).

Where an employee who is the subject of a workplace investigation raises his or her grievance during the investigation, the investigator should follow the same steps outlined above to triage new issues or claims. The investigator should also discuss with in-house counsel whether any particular steps should be taken to avoid the perception that any disciplinary measures taken against the employee (in the event the original claims are substantiated) were retaliatory.

Since neither consent nor the presence of the employee is material to the conduct of the investigation, his or her absence would not, in practice, imperil the conduct of the investigation.

As previously discussed, because the employer exercises a wide latitude of discretion in conducting workplace investigations, the employer may choose to proceed with the investigation despite the absence of the employee being investigated. Since the proceeding is only in the investigation phase, the statutory right of the employee to be heard is not violated, even if the investigation takes place without his or her participation.

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).

If an employee who is the subject of a workplace investigation becomes sick during the investigation, the investigator should complete as much of the process as possible in the employee’s absence, for example by conducting interviews with the complainant and other witnesses and collecting and reviewing relevant documentation. Where the employee’s absence is expected to be short-term, the employer can postpone completing the investigation until the employee returns to work and can be interviewed. Where a lengthy absence is expected, the investigator should take steps to ensure that the employee nevertheless has a fair chance to participate in the process, for example by providing the employee with flexibility in scheduling his or her interview or by offering other accommodations such as conducting the interview by video conference instead of requiring an in-person interview, or alternatively meeting in a neutral place instead of the office. It is important to maintain records of the steps taken to accommodate the employee to show that the process was reasonable and fair. 

It is within the employer’s discretion to pursue the investigation even if a parallel criminal or regulatory investigation is taking place. As such, different investigations may proceed independently of each other. However, if the workplace investigation would interfere with or hinder the criminal or regulatory investigation, the workplace investigation should defer to the investigation being conducted by the people in authority. Since the nature of a workplace investigation is highly confidential, the police or regulations cannot compel any evidence from the employer without a court order.

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).

Employers have obligations to conduct a thorough and unbiased internal investigation and take prompt remedial action to prevent further workplace violations. As such, absent a criminal or regulatory investigation where the investigators ask the employer to pause an internal investigation, employers should be prepared to continue their internal investigation in parallel with the criminal or regulatory investigation while cooperating with police or regulatory investigators.

The police and the regulator can often compel the employer to share certain information gathered from its internal investigation. In some cases, the employer should analyse whether the non-disclosure of information evidencing criminal conduct within the company itself constitutes an independent crime or whether an applicable statute or regulation imposes an independent duty to disclose. Alternatively, the employer should consider whether, even absent an affirmative duty to disclose, disclosure of information gathered during an internal investigation may still benefit the employer.

The employee under investigation should be informed of the results of the investigation and the basis of the conclusion. It should be included in the first notice or the notice to explain.

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]

In general, it is often helpful to provide the complainant and subject of the complaint with a short written communication or verbal communication at the end of an investigation to advise that the investigation has concluded. Where the allegations are unsubstantiated, the communication should convey that no evidence of misconduct or unlawful conduct was found. Where the allegations are substantiated, the results and proposed communication should be reviewed with the legal function, together with potential disciplinary and remedial action, before it is communicated to the complainant and the subject of the complaint.

Where the misconduct alleged poses a high risk to the company from a reputational, operational or legal perspective, and especially where an investigation is conducted by outside counsel, outside counsel should determine, in consultation with the relevant individuals at the company, for example the general counsel, how and with whom to share investigation results and if and how to communicate the outcome to the complainant and the subject of the complaint. This is the case regardless of whether the allegations are found to be substantiated or unsubstantiated.

The employer is not compelled to share its investigation report with the employee. However, it would be ideal for the company to keep in its records a comprehensive report that details the findings of the investigation. This would be useful during the administrative disciplinary process when the employee requests to be informed of the substantive grounds for his or her eventual termination.

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]

Only the findings should be shared with the complainant and the subject of the complaint.

After the investigation has been concluded, the next steps of the employer will depend on the result of the investigation. If there are reasonable grounds to hold the employee for an administrative hearing, the employer may issue a Notice To Explain containing the charges against him or her and allowing the employee to explain his or her side. Otherwise, the employer may terminate the investigation immediately.

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.

Where the misconduct alleged is substantiated in whole or in part by an internal investigation, the human resources function, potentially in consultation with in-house or outside counsel, should agree on disciplinary or remedial action to be implemented.

The result of the workplace investigation must be kept private by the employer. These are confidential matters that should not be disclosed to people or entities who did not take part in the investigation. However, if the investigation findings show that a possibly unlawful or criminal activity has taken place, or is about to take place, the employer should share such findings with the authorities.

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]

Once fact-finding is complete, the investigator should discuss his or her notes with in-house or outside counsel and prepare a summary of the process, high-level findings, and a proposed resolution at the counsel’s direction. This report should not include subjective commentary and should also avoid including excessive detail, and generally be treated confidentially during and after the investigation. If the report is requested by regulators or the police, the company should discuss with in-house counsel, and preferably also with outside counsel, how to respond to the request and whether any steps need to be taken to protect any applicable legal privilege.

The outcome of the investigation should only remain on the employee’s record for as long as is necessary, but shall not be less than three years as this is the record-keeping requirement under the Philippine Labor Code. If circumstances deem that such a report ceases to have any purpose whatsoever, it should be struck out of the employee’s record.

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]

There is no requirement for the results of a workplace investigation to remain on an employee’s record for any specific period. It is often helpful, however, for information relating to the outcome of such an investigation (regardless of whether the allegations are substantiated) to be accessible to the human resources or legal functions such that during the initial complaint intake process described above, any prior complaints and investigations relating to the same individual or group of individuals can be taken into account to identify any recurring issues or systemic violations.

An employer may be liable for illegal termination if a dismissal is made based on wrong information collected during the investigation. Thus, the data and information gathered during the investigation stage must be correct and accurate. Further, investigations should be conducted in a manner that is fair and reasonable to the employee under investigation. Otherwise, the employee may treat the investigation as harassment on the part of the employer, which may subject the employer to a potential lawsuit.

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]

The subject of the investigation, the complainant, or a government agency investigating the same alleged misconduct could subject the employer to legal exposure. It is, therefore, helpful for a company to prepare a contemporaneous report of the investigation that summarises: the incident or issues investigated, including dates; the parties involved; key factual and credibility findings; employer policies or guidelines and their applicability to the investigation; specific conclusions; the party (or parties) responsible for making the final determination; issues that could not be resolved through the internal investigation; and employer actions taken.

The employer should also maintain a clear record of the steps taken to investigate the alleged misconduct and any findings, as well as all evidence gathered during the investigation, including documents collected and reviewed, any work done to identify systemic issues or patterns of behaviour, and notes from all interviews, which should be limited to the facts gathered, dated and should indicate the duration and location of the interview.