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.
10. What confidentiality obligations apply during an investigation?
10. What confidentiality obligations apply during an investigation?
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
Workplace investigations should usually be conducted on a confidential basis to preserve the integrity of the investigation, avoid cross-contamination of evidence and maintain the confidentiality of the employee under investigation. This means that those involved in the investigation (ie, the subject employee and any material witnesses) should be made aware of the fact and substance of the investigation on a need-to-know basis.
While the extent of the confidentiality obligations are usually governed by the employer’s internal policies and the employment contract, there are circumstances where the employer has a statutory duty to keep information unearthed in the investigation confidential. For instance, if it is found that certain property represents proceeds of an indictable offence[1] or drug trafficking[2], or is terrorist property[3], the employer should report its knowledge or suspicion to the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (JFIU) as soon as is reasonably practicable and avoid disclosure to any other person as such disclosure may constitute “tipping off”. Another example is if a workplace investigation is commenced in response to a regulatory enquiry, the employer may be bound by a statutory secrecy obligation and may not be at liberty to disclose anything about the regulatory enquiry to anyone including those who are subject to the workplace investigation. For example, section 378 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) imposes such a secrecy obligation on anyone who is under investigation or assists the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) in an investigation.[4]
[1] OSCO section 25A(5). A person who contravenes the section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of $500,000 and to imprisonment for 3 years, or upon summary conviction to a fine of $100,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year.
[2] DTROPO section 25A(1). A person who contravenes the section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of $500,000 and to imprisonment for 3 years, or upon summary conviction to a fine of $100,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year.
[3] UNATMO section 12(1). A person who contravenes the section is liable on conviction to a fine and to imprisonment for 3 years, or upon summary conviction to a fine of $100,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year.
[4] A person who fails to maintain secrecy is liable upon conviction on indictment to a maximum fine of $1 million and imprisonment for up to two years (or upon summary conviction, to a maximum fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for up to six months).
Spain
Spain
- at Uría Menéndez
- at Uría Menéndez
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.
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
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]
[1] Wolfgang Portmann/Roger Rudolph, BSK OR, Art. 328 N 1 et seq.
[2]Claudia Fritsche, Interne Untersuchungen in der Schweiz, Ein Handbuch für Unternehmen mit besonderem Fokus auf Finanzinstitute, p. 202.
[3] David Rosenthal et al., Praxishandbuch für interne Untersuchungen und eDiscovery, Release 1.01, Zürich/Bern 2021, p. 133.
15. Does the employee under investigation have a right to be accompanied or have legal representation during the investigation?
15. Does the employee under investigation have a right to be accompanied or have legal representation during the investigation?
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
Absent any right conferred by the employment contract or the relevant internal policy, employees do not have a right under Hong Kong law to be accompanied or have legal representation during an investigation meeting or interview. While the employee being investigated is entitled to seek his or her own legal advice during the investigation, employers have discretion on whether to allow the employee to be accompanied or represented by his or her legal adviser in an investigation meeting or interview. That said, to ensure fairness in the process and to avoid unnecessary allegations of undue influence, the employer may consider allowing the employee to have legal representatives present, especially if serious allegations are made against the employee and the outcome of the investigation could have a significant impact on the employee’s future.
Spain
Spain
- at Uría Menéndez
- at Uría Menéndez
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.
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
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.
[1] Claudia Götz Staehelin, Unternehmensinterne Untersuchungen, 2019, p. 37.
[2] Simona Wantz/Sara Licci, Arbeitsvertragliche Rechte und Pflichten bei internen Untersuchungen, in: Jusletter 18 February 2019, N 59.
[3] Roger Rudolph, Interne Untersuchungen: Spannungsfelder aus arbeitsrechtlicher Sicht, SJZ 114/2018, p. 392; Niklaus Ruckstuhl, BSK-StPO, Art. 158 StPO N 36.