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
Select specific jurisdictions to filter on
Choose questions
Choose the questions you would like answering, or choose all for the full picture.
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
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.
Flag / Icon
Switzerland
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.
Download your results as a PDF
Download as pdf link
Contributors
Australia
People + Culture Strategies
Austria
GERLACH
Belgium
Van Olmen & Wynant
Brazil
CGM
China
Jingtian & Gongcheng
Finland
Roschier
France
Bredin Prat
Germany
Hengeler Mueller
Greece
Karatzas & Partners
Hong Kong
Slaughter and May
India
Trilegal
Ireland
Ogier
Italy
BonelliErede
Japan
Mori Hamada & Matsumoto
Netherlands
De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
Nigeria
Bloomfield LP
Philippines
Villaraza & Angangco
Poland
WKB Lawyers
Portugal
Uría Menéndez - Proença de Carvalho
Singapore
Rajah & Tann Singapore
South Korea
Kim & Chang
Spain
Uría Menéndez
Sweden
Mannheimer Swartling
Switzerland
Bär & Karrer
Thailand
Chandler MHM
Turkey
Paksoy
United Kingdom
Slaughter and May
United States
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Vietnam
Le & Tran Law Corporation
Contributors
Spain
Uría Menéndez
Switzerland
Bär & Karrer