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.
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?
Flag / Icon
Finland
Finland
- at Roschier
- at Roschier
The process must be transparent and impartial, and therefore all the information that may influence the conclusions made during the investigation should be shared with the employee.
Flag / Icon
Turkey
Turkey
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
Informing the employee under investigation on the subject, purpose and possible consequences of the investigation need to be evaluated by the investigation team before the interview. As a general principle, the interviewer is expected to share the information he obtained on the case with the employee, and ask for confirmation or clarification on these matters. The employee under investigation may be subject to an interview to gain information or as a confrontation if there is concrete evidence. If the evidence in hand is not based on concrete and material grounds, it would be more appropriate not to lead the interview to a confession, but inform the employee of the possible allegations. However, if the available evidence is based on concrete and material grounds, the interviewer may confront the interviewee by sharing the information that was gathered during the investigation in an attempt to obtain a confession.
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
Finland
Roschier
Turkey
Paksoy