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.
01. What legislation, guidance and/or policies govern a workplace investigation?
02. How is a workplace investigation usually commenced?
03. Can an employee be suspended during a workplace investigation? Are there any conditions on suspension (eg, pay, duration)?
04. Who should conduct a workplace investigation, are there minimum qualifications or criteria that need to be met?
05. Can the employee under investigation bring legal action to stop the investigation?
06. Can co-workers be compelled to act as witnesses? What legal protections do employees have when acting as witnesses in an investigation?
07. What data protection or other regulations apply when gathering physical evidence?
08. Can the employer search employees’ possessions or files as part of an investigation?
09. What additional considerations apply when the investigation involves whistleblowing?
10. What confidentiality obligations apply during an investigation?
11. What information must the employee under investigation be given about the allegations against them?
12. Can the identity of the complainant, witnesses or sources of information for the investigation be kept confidential?
13. Can non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) be used to keep the fact and substance of an investigation confidential?
14. When does privilege attach to investigation materials?
15. Does the employee under investigation have a right to be accompanied or have legal representation during the investigation?
16. If there is a works council or trade union, does it have any right to be informed or involved in the investigation?
17. What other support can employees involved in the investigation be given?
18. What if unrelated matters are revealed as a result of the investigation?
19. What if the employee under investigation raises a grievance during the investigation?
20. What if the employee under investigation goes off sick during the investigation?
21. How do you handle a parallel criminal and/or regulatory investigation?
22. What must the employee under investigation be told about the outcome of an investigation?
- (-)
23. Should the investigation report be shared in full, or just the findings?
24. What next steps are available to the employer?
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?
26. How long should the outcome of the investigation remain on the employee’s record?
27. What legal exposure could the employer face for errors during the investigation?
23. Should the investigation report be shared in full, or just the findings?
23. Should the investigation report be shared in full, or just the findings?
Flag / Icon
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
The employer is generally not obliged to share the investigation report or the findings with the employee under Hong Kong law, absent any express obligations under the employment contract.
However, according to the PDPO, the content of the investigation report or meeting minutes related to the employee (including any findings and opinions expressed in such documents) are likely to constitute the personal data of the employee under investigation. In that case, the employee may have a right under the PDPO to obtain a copy of such documents by making a statutory data access request after the workplace investigation is completed. The employer’s obligation to comply with such request is subject to certain exemptions under Part 8 of the PDPO, which include (among others) an exemption on the provision of personal data held for the prevention, preclusion or remedying of unlawful or seriously improper conduct, and the disclosure of which would be likely to prejudice the said purpose or directly or indirectly identify the person who is the source of the data.[1] Therefore, where there is a parallel criminal proceeding or investigation that has not been concluded, the employer may reject an employee’s data access request on the basis that the requested disclosure may prejudice the prevention and remedy of the unlawful conduct. Further, any information protected by legal privilege is also exempt from disclosure under Part 8 of the PDPO.[2]
If the requested documents also contain the personal data of any other third parties (such as other co-workers of the employee who have also participated in the investigation), the employer should always redact or erase such data before providing the requested documents to the employee under investigation, unless the relevant third parties have consented to the disclosure of the data.
Flag / Icon
Sweden
Sweden
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
There is no obligation to share the investigation report, neither in full nor key findings, with the involved parties. An assessment needs to be made in each case of what is appropriate to share and with whom.
When sharing an investigation report, certain data protection considerations must be made. A purpose and legal basis for the sharing must be established and, in principle, documented.
If the Swedish Whistleblowing Act applies, the duty of confidentiality and the restrictions on access to and disclosure of personal data must be considered (see question 10).
Flag / Icon
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
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]
[1] Nicolas Facincani/Reto Sutter, Interne Untersuchungen: Rechte und Pflichten von Arbeitgebern und Angestellten, in: HR Today, to be found on: <Interne Untersuchungen: Rechte und Pflichten von Arbeitgebern und Angestellten | hrtoday.ch> (last visited on 27 June 2022).
Flag / Icon
United States
United States
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Only the findings should be shared with the complainant and the subject of the complaint.
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
Hong Kong
Slaughter and May
Sweden
Mannheimer Swartling
Switzerland
Bär & Karrer
United States
Cravath, Swaine & Moore