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.
11. What information must the employee under investigation be given about the allegations against them?
11. What information must the employee under investigation be given about the allegations against them?
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
An employer’s internal policies or the employment contract may provide that an employee under investigation should be given certain information concerning the allegations raised against him or her. Such policies or terms should be followed and failure to do so may result in a claim for breach of contract or constructive dismissal by the employee. Even where there are no express provisions, the employer still owes an implied obligation of trust and confidence towards the employee at common law, which requires the employer not to, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between itself and the employee.[1] In the context of an internal investigation, the implied duty would require the employer to conduct the investigation and reach its findings reasonably and rationally following the evidence available and in good faith. This would normally require that sufficient information about the allegations made against the employee be provided to him or her such that he or she has the opportunity to properly respond to the allegations before any disciplinary action is taken or any decision about his or her employment is made.
[1] Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) [1998] AC 20.
Spain
Spain
- at Uría Menéndez
- at Uría Menéndez
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.
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
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).
[1] Roger Rudolph, Interne Untersuchungen: Spannungsfelder aus arbeitsrechtlicher Sicht, SJZ 114/2018, p. 390.
[2] Roger Rudolph, Interne Untersuchungen: Spannungsfelder aus arbeitsrechtlicher Sicht, SJZ 114/2018, p. 390.
[3] Roger Rudolph, Interne Untersuchungen: Spannungsfelder aus arbeitsrechtlicher Sicht, SJZ 114/2018, p. 390.
[4] Claudia Götz Staehelin, Unternehmensinterne Untersuchungen, 2019, p. 37.
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.