Workplace Investigations

Workplace suspensions in Ireland are a contentious issue and can result in an employer defending injunction proceedings in the High Court before an investigation has started.

In the case of Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Reilly, the judge stated: “The suspension of an employee, whether paid or unpaid, is an extremely serious measure which can cause irreparable damage to his or her reputation and standing."

In the 2023 case of O’Sullivan v HSE, the Supreme Court held that the Health Service Executive acted fairly and reasonably as an employer in suspending a consultant doctor after he had performed experiments on patients without their consent. This ruling overturned the Court of Appeal's earlier decision that previously found the suspension to be unlawful, as the consultant did not represent an immediate threat to the health of patients.

The Supreme Court considered whether the employer's decision to place the consultant on administrative leave met the test set out in the English case of Braganza v BP Shipping Limited & Anor. In that case, the court held that the decisionmaker's discretion would be limited "by concepts of good faith, honesty and genuineness and the need for absence of arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality."

In relying on the principles set out in the Braganza case, the Irish courts have reinforced the right of a decision-maker in an employment context to have discretionary power when implementing a suspension and that any decision to do so must be made honestly and in good faith. Employers should obtain legal advice when considering whether to suspend an employee in any circumstance.

The company may place an employee who is subject to a workplace investigation under administrative leave if this seems necessary or appropriate to ensure the integrity of the workplace investigation. While administrative leave can take different forms, one way is to issue a “standby order” to the relevant employee, instructing him or her not to come into work and prohibiting contact with other employees or customers while the workplace investigation is ongoing.

Administrative leave is not a disciplinary action, but rather an exercise of the company’s authority to take personnel management measures. This authority is generally subject to a “reasonableness” test, with the Korean courts balancing the employer’s business necessity in placing the employee on administrative leave with the inconvenience caused to the employee. In conducting the balancing test, the Korean courts have considered whether the employee receives pay during the leave and the duration of the leave, among other things. In general, if the duration of the leave is not excessive and is with full pay and benefits, the employer’s management prerogative is likely to be recognised.

The company doesn't need to obtain the employee’s consent but, in practice, a company should consider getting the employee’s acknowledgement that they have received the administrative leave notice.

In addition to Korean labour law, other factors such as the company’s rules of employment or a collective bargaining agreement (if any) may affect the company’s ability to place the employee on administrative leave, by providing for prescribed procedures for placing an employee on administrative leave or requiring the company to obtain the union’s consent if a union leader or executive is involved.

It is possible to suspend an employee during a workplace investigation.[1] While there are no limits on duration, the employee will remain entitled to full pay during this time.

It would be difficult to assert privilege over materials that relate to the investigation itself.

Privilege may arise before the instigation of an investigation where an employer may seek legal advice from their legal advisors over the initial complaint and appropriate next steps. Subject to the relevant tests being met, Legal Advice Privilege arises in respect of a confidential communication that takes place between a professionally qualified lawyer and a client. Who the client is will be of significant importance as they must be capable of giving instructions to their lawyer, on behalf of the employer. Caution should be exercised by employers if advice to "the client" is disseminated further within the business to other members of management. If such a scenario arises, then there is a risk that privilege may be waived and such material could be disclosable under a data subject access request. Litigation privilege arises with respect to confidential communications that take place between a lawyer or a client and a third party for the dominant purpose of preparing for litigation, whether existing or reasonably contemplated.

It is also prudent to consider whether an external investigator should have access to their own independent legal advisor, and the funding arrangements for such advice would have to be considered by the employer.

No law recognises the common law concept of “attorney-client privilege” in Korea. However, communication with an attorney is protected to some extent under certain laws, such as the Constitution, the Attorney Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Civil Procedure Act. This protection is based on the attorney’s confidentiality obligation, which prohibits an attorney from divulging confidential matters acquired in the course of representing clients, unless otherwise prescribed by law. This confidentiality obligation generally allows an attorney to refuse to testify or comply with document production orders for information or materials the attorney obtained in the course of his or her duties that relate to the confidential information of clients.

In addition, there could be instances where materials from an investigation conducted in Korea may become subject to discovery outside of Korea. It is, therefore, important to ensure investigation materials are privileged under the relevant non-Korean laws in the jurisdictions where attorney-client privilege is recognised (eg, the US).

As outlined above, all employees generally have the right to know whether and what personal data is being or has been processed about them (article 8 paragraph 1, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection; article 328b, Swiss Code of Obligations).

The employer may refuse, restrict or postpone the disclosure or inspection of internal investigation documents if a legal statute so provides, if such action is necessary because of overriding third-party interests (article 9 paragraph 1, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection) or if the request for information is manifestly unfounded or malicious. Furthermore, a restriction is possible if overriding the self-interests of the responsible company requires such a measure and it also does not disclose the personal data to third parties. The employer or responsible party must justify its decision (article 9 paragraph 5, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection).[1]

The scope of the disclosure of information must, therefore, be determined by carefully weighing the interests of all parties involved in the internal investigation.