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

Germany

  • at Hengeler Mueller
  • at Hengeler Mueller
  • at Hengeler Mueller

It is up to the company to decide who should carry out the workplace investigation and individual investigative steps. If their staff is used, the question arises of which person or department (compliance, legal, internal audit, HR or management) should take the lead. The answer to this question may depend on various factors such as the number of employees affected by the workplace investigation and the nature of the alleged misconduct. In any event, due to various employment law and data protection issues, the HR department and the legal department should be involved.

Further, it may make sense to bring in external advisors to lead the investigation together with an internal investigation team of the company. The engagement of an external investigation team can also be advantageous concerning the two-week exclusion period for termination for cause. This period does not start to run as long as the external advisors are investigating, but only when the persons authorised to terminate employment receive the investigation report.

Last updated on 15/09/2022

Flag / Icon

South Korea

  • at Kim & Chang
  • at Kim & Chang
  • at Kim & Chang
  • at Kim & Chang

While there are no laws that set minimum qualifications for who should conduct a workplace investigation, companies often engage external legal counsel to ensure the investigation is conducted in an unbiased and professional manner. If the company itself undertakes the workplace investigation, the company should take precautions such as ensuring that the person conducting the investigation is not biased and not involved in the alleged wrongdoing. If the person conducting the investigation cannot converse in the native language of the employee under investigation, the company may consider arranging for an interpreter when conducting interviews, to minimise the risk of misunderstanding.

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

24. What next steps are available to the employer?

24. What next steps are available to the employer?

Flag / Icon

Germany

  • at Hengeler Mueller
  • at Hengeler Mueller
  • at Hengeler Mueller

Depending on the results of the investigation, different steps may have to be taken by the employer. Specifically, the following should be considered:

  • in certain cases, there may be an obligation (or at least good reason) to share the results of the workplace investigation with the authorities (see question 25);
  • filing of a criminal complaint against the employee;
  • disciplinary measures against the employee such as a warning, ordinary termination or termination for cause;
  • assessing and asserting claims for damages against the employee;
  • offering compliance training to the relevant employees or introducing additional measures to prevent further violations;
  • if there is a risk that the company itself is exposed to investigative proceedings at some point and may have to defend itself, investigation materials should be stored at the company's external attorney's office; and
  • depending on the individual circumstances of the case and to mitigate potential reputational damage, proactively informing the public (eg, by issuing a press release) may be beneficial.
Last updated on 15/09/2022

Flag / Icon

South Korea

  • at Kim & Chang
  • at Kim & Chang
  • at Kim & Chang
  • at Kim & Chang

After completing an investigation, the company may consider the following measures, among others:

  1. taking disciplinary action against the relevant employees;
  2. taking legal action (eg, criminal action, civil action) against the relevant employees; and
  3. taking appropriate remedial measures (eg, strengthening existing policies and establishing new policies, and conducting training).

The company may also consider making a voluntary report to the relevant authorities as discussed in question 25.

Last updated on 15/09/2022

Flag / Icon

Switzerland

  • at Bär & Karrer
  • at Bär & Karrer

If the investigation uncovers misconduct, the question arises as to what steps should be taken. Of course, the severity of the misconduct and the damage caused play a significant role. Furthermore, it must be noted that the cooperation of the employee concerned may be of decisive importance for the outcome of the investigation. The possibilities are numerous, ranging, for example, from preventive measures to criminal complaints.[1]

If individual disciplinary actions are necessary, these may range from warnings to ordinary or immediate termination of employment.

 

[1] David Rosenthal et al., Praxishandbuch für interne Untersuchungen und eDiscovery, Release 1.01, Zürich/Bern 2021, p. 180 et seq.

Last updated on 15/09/2022