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.

04. Who should conduct a workplace investigation, are there minimum qualifications or criteria that need to be met?

04. Who should conduct a workplace investigation, are there minimum qualifications or criteria that need to be met?

Flag / Icon

Spain

  • at Uría Menéndez
  • at Uría Menéndez

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).
Last updated on 15/09/2022

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Bär & Karrer
  • at Bär & Karrer

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.

 

[1] David Rosenthal et al., Praxishandbuch für interne Untersuchungen und eDiscovery, Release 1.01, Zürich/Bern 2021, p. 18.

Last updated on 15/09/2022

25. Who can (or must) the investigation findings be disclosed to? Does that include regulators/police? Can the interview records be kept private, or are they at risk of disclosure?

25. Who can (or must) the investigation findings be disclosed to? Does that include regulators/police? Can the interview records be kept private, or are they at risk of disclosure?

Flag / Icon

Spain

  • at Uría Menéndez
  • at Uría Menéndez

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.

Last updated on 15/09/2022

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Bär & Karrer
  • at Bär & Karrer

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]

 

[1] Oliver Thormann, Sicht der Strafverfolger – Chancen und Risiken, in: Flavio Romerio/Claudio Bazzani (Hrsg.), Interne und regulatorische Untersuchungen, Zürich/Basel/Genf 2016, p. 123.

[2] Oliver Thormann, Sicht der Strafverfolger – Chancen und Risiken, in: Flavio Romerio/Claudio Bazzani (Hrsg.), Interne und regulatorische Untersuchungen, Zürich/Basel/Genf 2016, p. 102 et seq.

Last updated on 15/09/2022