Workplace Investigations

The Employment Ordinance (EO), which is the primary legislation governing employment relationships in Hong Kong, does not provide for a statutory workplace investigation procedure.

The Labour Department of Hong Kong has, however, published a Guide to Good People Management Practices[1] which recommends that employers lay down rules of conduct, grievance and disciplinary procedures. Such rules should be simple and clear, logical and fair, and in line with the provisions in the EO.

As part of risk management and internal controls, Hong Kong-listed companies are expected by The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK) to establish whistleblowing policies and systems for employees to raise concerns about possible improprieties with independent board members. Listed companies are also expected to establish policies for the promotion and support of anti-corruption laws and regulations. Such policies and systems may include workplace investigation procedures.[2] If a listed company chooses to not establish such policies and systems, it is required to explain how it could achieve appropriate and effective risk management and internal controls.

There is no specific legal regulation for internal investigations in Switzerland. The legal framework is derived from general rules such as the employer's duty of care, the employee's duty of loyalty and the employee's data protection rights. Depending on the context of the investigation, additional legal provisions may apply; for instance, additional provisions of the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection or the Swiss Criminal Code.

In the UK, the primary employment legislation of relevance to a workplace investigation includes the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010), and the Employment Relations Act 1999 (ERA 1999).

Other legislation includes the retained EU law version of the General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018), the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016) and the Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018 (IP Regs 2018), and the Humans Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998).

In terms of guidance, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) have produced a Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (the ACAS Code) as well as a Guide to conducting workplace investigations. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) have their Employment Practices Code,  and other pieces of guidance on the data protection aspects of investigations (see question 7).

Most employers will have internal policies governing how workplace investigations should be conducted. The level of detail may vary considerably; public sector and regulated employers may be more prescriptive in their policies, which may even have contractual force. There may also be provisions of the employment contract that are relevant (particularly as regards suspension – see question 3).

The circumstances in which an employer commences a workplace investigation may vary. However, it is common that an employer will consider it necessary to commence a workplace investigation upon receipt of a complaint concerning a fellow employee. Sometimes, the complaint may be made anonymously. If the employer considers there to be substance in the complaint, it may commence an investigation to find out the truth of the matter, resolve the complaint and, if necessary, improve its systems and controls to prevent the reoccurrence of any misconduct.

A workplace investigation may be warranted if the employer receives an enquiry from a regulator concerning its affairs or an employee’s conduct. The investigation findings could enable the employer to respond to the regulator (which could be a mandatory obligation) and at the same time assess its risk exposure.

Internal investigations are usually initiated after reports about possible violations of the employer's code of conduct, applicable laws or regulations have been submitted by employees to their superiors, the human resources department or designated internal reporting systems such as hotlines (including whistleblowing hotlines).

For an internal investigation to be initiated, there must be a reasonable suspicion (grounds).[1] If no such grounds exist, the employer must ask the informant for further or more specific information. If no grounds for reasonable suspicion exists, the case must be closed. If grounds for reasonable suspicion exist, the appropriate investigative steps can be initiated by a formal investigation request from the company management.[2]

The trigger could come from several sources, such as a grievance from a current or former employee, a complaint from external sources, a whistleblowing disclosure, or as the result of internal governance measures.

In each case, the employer will need to decide if an investigation is warranted. It may be required by internal policies or regulatory requirements in some circumstances. Consideration must be given to whether an investigation is feasible; for example, is the evidence still in existence and accessible? Are key witnesses still employed or contactable?

If the employer concludes that an investigation is warranted, it should start without unreasonable delay. The first step would usually be to set terms of reference, which outline the purpose and remit of the investigation. These should be closely drafted and continually referred to, to avoid the investigation’s scope expanding when new points arise (as they almost always will). An investigator will also need to be appointed (see question 4).

It may be appropriate to suspend an employee during a workplace investigation, for instance, where the investigation has revealed misconduct on his or her part (even on a preliminary basis), or his or her continued presence in the business would hinder the progress of the investigation. However, the employer will have to consider the relevant legislative provisions and the terms of the employment contract before making any decision on suspension.

Under section 11 of the EO, an employer may suspend an employee without pay pending a decision as to whether the employee should be summarily dismissed (up to 14 days) or pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings against the employee arising out of his or her employment (up to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings). If an employee is suspended as above, however, the employee may terminate his or her employment without notice or payment in lieu of notice.

It is more common for an employer to suspend an employee with pay during an investigation concerning his or her conduct rather than exercising its statutory right as mentioned above. This could avoid an unnecessary dispute with the employee concerned. Indeed, it is common for employers to include in employment contracts specific provisions to give themselves the right to suspend an employee with pay in certain circumstances. The provisions normally set out the circumstances in which the employer may exercise the right, the maximum period of suspension and other arrangements during the suspension period (eg, how the employee’s entitlements under the employment contract are to be dealt with).

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.

In the UK, suspension is not seen as a neutral act, so should not be a default approach at the start of an investigation. It may be appropriate if, for example, there is a risk to the health and safety of the employee in question (or any other employee), a risk that their continued presence in the business could prejudice the investigation, or risk of continued wrongdoing.

The employer should always check the individual’s employment contract to see if it contains the power to suspend. Suspension should generally always be with pay to avoid any breach of contract. It should also be regularly reviewed and kept to a minimum duration.

Employers should not suspend employees under investigation as a knee-jerk reaction to bare allegations. There must be at least some evidence to support the need for suspension (which may require a preliminary investigation before deciding to suspend). Alternatives to suspension should always be considered, such as a temporary transfer to a different area of work, if the employee agrees or it is otherwise permitted by their contract.

If authorities such as regulators or prosecutorial agencies are involved in the investigation, they may have an opinion about an employee’s suspension, particularly if they wish to conduct interviews. Consider whether or not to involve the authorities in the suspension discussions at an early stage.

ACAS have produced a guide to suspension during investigations (last updated Sept 2022) which gives further guidance on these issues.

There are no statutory or regulatory requirements regarding the choice of investigator in workplace investigations. However, it is good practice to have the investigation conducted by persons who have been trained to do so as investigations may involve intricate issues. It is also important that the investigators are perceived to be impartial and fair. For that reason, the investigators should be individuals who are not involved in the matter under investigation.

Complex cases or cases that involve a senior employee may require someone more senior within the company to lead and oversee the conduct of the investigation. This also applies where it is foreseeable that the investigation may lead to disciplinary action, summary dismissal of the employee or a report to an authority.

Engagement of external parties or professional advisors may be necessary if the conduct under investigation is serious or widespread and may lead to regulatory consequences, or if the employer does not have the requisite expertise to handle the investigation. Lawyers (whether in-house counsel or external lawyers) may be the best fit to conduct a workplace investigation to ensure that legal professional privilege attaches to documents and communications created during the investigation (please see question 14).

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.

The investigator would typically be a line manager or HR representative. Complex cases, particularly if criminality is suspected, or cases where a senior employee is accused of misconduct, may require the investigator to be someone more senior within the organisation, or someone from the in-house legal team. Employers should bear in mind the need for someone more senior than the investigator to act as a disciplinary decisionmaker, if disciplinary action is found to be warranted.

Check the organisation’s policies and procedures, which may stipulate who can act as an investigator.

The investigator should be someone without any personal involvement in the matters under investigation, or any conflict of interest, but with sufficient knowledge of the organisation and where possible with both training and experience in conducting investigations.

The business should consider how any prospective investigator may appear if they are called as a witness in court, or to give evidence before any governmental committee or regulatory panel. They should also consider whether the employee accused of wrongdoing should have any say in the choice of investigator; this would not typically occur, but having the employee’s buy-in can increase the chances of a successful outcome to the investigation.

It is becoming increasingly common for businesses to use an external consultant or lawyer to conduct workplace investigations. This may be beneficial where it is not operationally viable within the employer organisation to have a different person conducting the investigation and the disciplinary hearing, or if the investigation is particularly sensitive or complex, or relates to a very senior employee. If an external investigator is appointed, the employer remains responsible for that investigation.

If the investigation is conducted in a manner that is contrary to an express term of the employment contract or the implied obligation of trust and confidence of the employer under common law (please see question 11), the employee may have a claim for breach of contract and possible remedies may include declaratory and injunctive relief against the investigation.

The accused could theoretically request a court to stop the investigation, for instance, by arguing that there is no reason for the investigation and that the investigation infringes the employee's personality rights. However, if the employer can prove that there were grounds for reasonable suspicion and is conducting the investigation properly, it is unlikely that such a request would be successful.

Not usually, unless the investigation is being conducted in breach of a contractual policy (as sometimes happens in the NHS, for example), or if the investigation is not adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings, and the employee can show that failure to do so is a breach of either an express term or the implied term of trust and confidence. The latter would be rare, but possible if the employee can demonstrate a real danger of a miscarriage of justice (see question 21).

Under Hong Kong law, the employee has an implied duty to obey lawful instructions from his or her employer and to serve the employer with fidelity and good faith during the term of his or her employment. A lawful instruction from an employer may include a reasonable request for the employee to participate and provide information in the workplace investigation. If the employee refuses to comply with such instruction or is obstructive or provides untrue or misleading information, it could constitute a ground for summary dismissal under the EO and at common law.

That said, in general terms, an employer should not compel any employee to testify against a co-worker, particularly if such a co-worker is a senior colleague, as evidence provided under compulsion may not be helpful to the investigation.

Employees who act as witnesses must be treated as per their contractual and statutory rights, including the right against self-incrimination. If the investigation involves allegations of discrimination on the ground of sex, race or disability, the employer should ensure that the witnesses will not be victimised or treated less favourably than other employees.

Due to the employee's duty of loyalty towards the employer and the employer's right to give instructions to its employees, employees generally must take part in an ongoing investigation and comply with any summons for questioning if the employer demands this (article 321d, Swiss Code of Obligations). If the employees refuse to participate, they generally are in breach of their statutory duties, which may lead to measures such as a termination of employment.

The question of whether employees may refuse to testify if they would have to incriminate themselves is disputed in legal doctrine.[1] However, according to legal doctrine, a right to refuse to testify exists if criminal conduct regarding the questioned employee or a relative (article 168 et seq, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code) is involved, and it cannot be ruled out that the investigation documentation may later end up with the prosecuting authorities (ie, where employees have a right to refuse to testify in criminal proceedings, they cannot be forced to incriminate themselves by answering questions in an internal investigation).[2]

Employees may be reluctant to be interviewed or act as witnesses as part of an investigation, perhaps due to fear of reprisals. The investigator should discuss any concerns with the employee and attempt to alleviate any fears.

In general terms, an employer should not compel any employee to provide a witness statement. There may be circumstances in which this could be seen as a reasonable management instruction (and any refusal to comply treated as a disciplinary matter), but these will be rare. Evidence that is compelled is unlikely to be particularly useful to the investigator.

It may be possible to establish an express or implied obligation for senior managers to report on another employee's misconduct – as a feature of either their employment contractual duties, their fiduciary duties or their implied duty of fidelity. However, it is unlikely, in the absence of an express obligation, that a junior employee would be compelled to give evidence against a colleague.

Employees who act as witnesses benefit from their usual employment protections, and must be treated as per their contractual and statutory rights, as well as any policy governing the investigation. If the investigation involves allegations which could involve discrimination, the EA 2010 extends protection from victimisation to “giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act”. Witnesses should therefore not be subject to any detrimental treatment because they have acted as a witness in this type of investigation. Witnesses may also be entitled to protection as whistleblowers if their evidence amounts to a protected disclosure (see question 9).

If physical evidence contains data relating to an individual, from which the identity of the individual can be ascertained,[1] the data would constitute personal data under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (PDPO). The PDPO sets out several data protection principles that the employer must comply with while processing personal data, including:[2]

• personal data must be collected for a lawful purpose related to a function or activity of the employer and should not be excessive for this purpose. An internal investigation would be regarded as a lawful purpose;
• personal data must be accurate and not kept longer than is necessary;
• personal data must not be used for a purpose other than the internal investigation (or other purposes for which the data was collected) unless the employee consents to a new use or the new use falls within one of the exceptions provided in the PDPO;
• personal data must be safeguarded against unauthorised or accidental access, processing or loss; and
• the employee whose personal data has been collected has the right to request access to and correction of his or her personal data retained by the employer.

If an employer wants to gather evidence through employee monitoring, it should ensure that the act of monitoring complies with the data protection principles of the PDPO if the monitoring activity would amount to the collection of personal data. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data has issued guidelines to employers on the steps they can take in assessing whether employee monitoring is appropriate for their businesses.[3] As a general rule, employee monitoring should be conducted overtly. Further, those who may be affected should be notified in advance of the purposes the monitoring is intended to serve, the circumstances in which the system will be activated, what personal data (if any) will be collected and how the personal data will be used.

Covert surveillance of employees should not be adopted unless it is justified by relevant special circumstances. Employers should consider whether there is reason to believe that there is an unlawful activity taking place and the use of overt monitoring would likely prejudice the detection or collection of evidence.[4] Even if covert monitoring is justified, it should target only those areas in which an unlawful activity is likely to take place and be implemented for a limited duration of time.

The Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection applies to the gathering of evidence, in particular such collection must be lawful, transparent, reasonable and in good faith, and data security must be preserved.[1]

It can be derived from the duty to disclose and hand over benefits received and work produced (article 321b, Swiss Code of Obligations) as they belong to the employer.[2] The employer is, therefore, generally entitled to collect and process data connected with the end product of any work completely by an employee and associated with their business. However, it is prohibited by the Swiss Criminal Code to open a sealed document or consignment to gain knowledge of its contents without being authorised to do so (article 179 et seq, Swiss Criminal Code). Anyone who disseminates or makes use of information of which he or she has obtained knowledge by opening a sealed document or mailing not intended for him or her may become criminally liable (article 179 paragraph 1, Swiss Criminal Code).

It is advisable to state in internal regulations that the workplace might be searched as part of an internal investigation and in compliance with all applicable data protection rules if this is necessary as part of the investigation.

Most forms of workplace surveillance involve the processing of personal data that is regulated by the UK GDPR and DPA 2018. The UK GDPR requires that personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner; it also must be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary concerning the purposes for which it is processed.

Employers should ensure that they have undertaken a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) to document the lawful basis for processing data, and informed employees that their files may be searched before proceeding. They should also ideally have a clear policy on the use of electronic communications systems, detailing when, how and for what purpose they may be monitored by the employer. In Q3 2023 the ICO produced new guidance on monitoring workers (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/employment/monitoring-workers/) and on email and security (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/security/email-and-security/) which employers should bear in mind during investigations. Employers should also be prepared to make the data collected through employee monitoring available to employees, should the employee submit a data subject access request under the DPA 2018.

The IPA 2016 makes it unlawful in certain circumstances to intercept a communication (such as one on an employer’s telephone or computer network) in the course of its transmission in the UK. The IPA Regs 2018 set out the circumstances where, in a business context, such interception will be lawful. These include monitoring or recording communications without consent to: establish the existence of facts; ascertain compliance with the regulatory or self-regulatory practices or procedures relevant to the business; ascertain or demonstrate standards which are or ought to be achieved by persons using the system; and prevent or detect crime.

Covert surveillance can lead to a breach of an employee's right to privacy under the HRA 1998. The employer will need to consider if covert surveillance is proportionate, which will depend on the facts of each case. Employers should be careful not to use the investigation as an excuse to undertake a "fishing expedition", and should avoid gathering material that is obviously personal, such as private messages and diary entries (see question 8).

As part of an investigation, an employer may search objects or files that are the company’s property (eg, electronic devices given by the employer for business purposes and emails or messages stored on the company’s server) without prior notice and the employee’s consent is not needed. The employer, however, has no right to search an employee’s possessions (eg, a private smartphone) without the employee’s consent.

To avoid arguments as to who a particular object belongs to, employers may specify in internal policies what is to be regarded as a corporate asset and could be subject to a search in a workplace investigation.

Concerning an employee’s possessions, even if he or she consents to a search, it is good practice for the employer to conduct the search in the presence of the employee or an independent third party who can act as a witness to the search. If the employer suspects that a criminal offence has been committed and that a search of the employee’s possessions would reveal evidence, the employer should consider reporting its suspicion to the police, as they have wider legal powers to search.[1]

The basic rule is that the employer may not search private data during internal investigations.

If there is a strong suspicion of criminal conduct on the part of the employee and a sufficiently strong justification exists, a search of private data may be justified.[1] The factual connection with the employment relationship is given, for example, in the case of a criminal act committed during working hours or using workplace infrastructure.[2]

It may sometimes be difficult to draw a clear distinction between the property of the employer and employees’ personal property, both physical and electronic, particularly where employees are increasingly working from home. Employers should ideally have a clear policy to delineate what is the employer’s property.

Employees typically have a reasonable expectation of privacy at work, although how far this extends will depend on the circumstances of each case and the employer’s policies.

When it comes to employees’ personal possessions, a search should only be conducted in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear, legitimate justification. The employer should always consider whether it is possible to establish the relevant facts through the collection of other evidence. Even if the employee’s contract specifies that it is permitted, employers would usually require explicit employee consent for the search to be lawful. The employee should be invited to be present during the search; if this is not feasible, another independent third party (such as a manager) should be present.  

If the employee refuses to consent to a search of their personal possessions, their refusal should not be used to assume guilt; the investigator should explore why the employee has refused and seek to resolve their concerns if possible.

If the employer believes that a criminal offence has been committed it should consider involving the police, since they have wider powers to search individuals and their possessions. 

Hong Kong does not have a comprehensive legislative framework relating to whistleblowing. Therefore, in general, employers are free to establish whistleblowing policies and procedures and confer such protections on whistleblowers as they see fit. That said, companies listed on the Main Board of the SEHK are expected to establish a whistleblowing policy and system for employees to voice concerns anonymously about possible improprieties in the companies’ affairs. If a listed issuer deviates from this practice, it must explain the deviation.[1]

When an investigation involves whistleblowing, the employer needs to comply with the relevant policy and system and provide the whistleblower with such protections as stated in the policy. The employer should not ignore a complaint simply because it was made anonymously, and should ascertain the substance of the complaint to decide whether a full-blown investigation is warranted.

In addition, the employer should seek to establish a secure communication channel with the whistleblower to gather more information about the complaint or misconduct while maintaining the confidentiality of his or her identity. If the complaint is serious, the employer may consider referring the complaint to a law enforcement agency or regulator as they would be better placed in protecting the anonymity of the whistleblower while proceeding with the investigation. That said, employers generally have no obligation to report internal wrongdoing to any external body (please see question 25 for exceptions). The employer may assess whether it is appropriate to do so on a case-by-case basis.

If an employee complains to his or her superiors about grievances or misconduct in the workplace and is subsequently dismissed, this may constitute an unlawful termination (article 336, Swiss Code of Obligations). However, the prerequisite for this is that the employee behaves in good faith, which is not the case if he or she is (partly) responsible for the grievance.

The employer should first identify which individuals may have protection as whistleblowers. This could be a current or former employee who raises the initial complaint, a co-worker who gives evidence as part of the investigation, or the accused employee.

In each case, consider whether a “protected disclosure” has been made (under Part IVA ERA 1996). This requires analysis of the subject matter of the disclosure, how it is made, and a reasonable belief that it is made in the public interest.

Employers must then ensure there is no detrimental treatment or dismissal of any worker on the grounds of their protected disclosure. Although the causation test for these purposes is not straightforward, as a general rule if the protected disclosure has a “material influence” on the decision to discipline or dismiss, there may be liability. Individual managers may be personally liable alongside the employer. Compensation for whistleblowing cases is uncapped, meaning businesses and individuals can face significant financial and reputational exposure.

What this means in practical terms is that the employer should promote a “speak-up” culture and, where protected disclosures are made, ensure they are handled by a team who are properly trained in how to do so.

Workplace investigations should usually be conducted on a confidential basis to preserve the integrity of the investigation, avoid cross-contamination of evidence and maintain the confidentiality of the employee under investigation. This means that those involved in the investigation (ie, the subject employee and any material witnesses) should be made aware of the fact and substance of the investigation on a need-to-know basis.

While the extent of the confidentiality obligations are usually governed by the employer’s internal policies and the employment contract, there are circumstances where the employer has a statutory duty to keep information unearthed in the investigation confidential. For instance, if it is found that certain property represents proceeds of an indictable offence[1] or drug trafficking[2], or is terrorist property[3], the employer should report its knowledge or suspicion to the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (JFIU) as soon as is reasonably practicable and avoid disclosure to any other person as such disclosure may constitute “tipping off”. Another example is if a workplace investigation is commenced in response to a regulatory enquiry, the employer may be bound by a statutory secrecy obligation and may not be at liberty to disclose anything about the regulatory enquiry to anyone including those who are subject to the workplace investigation. For example, section 378 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) imposes such a secrecy obligation on anyone who is under investigation or assists the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) in an investigation.[4]

Besides the employee's duty of performance (article 319, Swiss Code of Obligations), the employment relationship is defined by the employer's duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations) and the employee's duty of loyalty (article 321a, Swiss Code of Obligations). Ancillary duties can be derived from the two duties, which are of importance for the confidentiality of an internal investigation.[1]

In principle, the employer must respect and protect the personality (including confidentiality and privacy) and integrity of the employee (article 328 paragraph 1, Swiss Code of Obligations) and take appropriate measures to protect the employee. Because of the danger of pre-judgment or damage to reputation as well as other adverse consequences, the employer must conduct an internal investigation discreetly and objectively. The limits of the duty of care are found in the legitimate self-interest of the employer.[2]

In return for the employer's duty of care, employees must comply with their duty of loyalty and safeguard the employer's legitimate interests. In connection with an internal investigation, employees must therefore keep the conduct of an investigation confidential. Additionally, employees must keep confidential and not disclose to any third party any facts that they have acquired in the course of the employment relationship, and which are neither obvious nor publicly accessible.[3]

Workplace investigations should usually be conducted on a confidential basis, so that only those involved in the investigation are aware of its existence and subject matter. The need to maintain confidentiality about both the fact of the investigation, and any content discussed with an investigator, should be emphasised to all those involved. It may also be necessary to explain that a breach of confidentiality could be viewed as a disciplinary matter. Appropriate exceptions must, however, be made to allow employees to speak to any relevant employee or trade union representative, legal adviser and potentially the police or other regulators. Confidentiality provisions cannot override the rights of workers to make protected disclosures (see question 9).

In some situations, such as those involving a wide-ranging investigation into the organisation’s working practices and culture, it may be more appropriate to investigate a more “open” basis, and inform employees and other stakeholders.

An employer’s internal policies or the employment contract may provide that an employee under investigation should be given certain information concerning the allegations raised against him or her. Such policies or terms should be followed and failure to do so may result in a claim for breach of contract or constructive dismissal by the employee. Even where there are no express provisions, the employer still owes an implied obligation of trust and confidence towards the employee at common law, which requires the employer not to, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between itself and the employee.[1] In the context of an internal investigation, the implied duty would require the employer to conduct the investigation and reach its findings reasonably and rationally following the evidence available and in good faith. This would normally require that sufficient information about the allegations made against the employee be provided to him or her such that he or she has the opportunity to properly respond to the allegations before any disciplinary action is taken or any decision about his or her employment is made.

As a result of the employer's duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations), employees under investigation have certain procedural rights. These include, in principle, the right of the accused to be heard. In this context, the accused has the right to be informed at the beginning of the questioning about the subject of the investigation and at least the main allegations and they must be allowed to share their view and provide exculpatory evidence.[1] The employer, on the other hand, is not obliged to provide the employee with existing evidence, documents, etc, before the start of the questioning.[2]

Covert investigations in which employees are involved in informal or even private conversations to induce them to provide statements are not compatible with the data-processing principles of good faith and the requirement of recognisability, according to article 4 of the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection.[3]

Also, rights to information arise from the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection. In principle, the right to information (article 8, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection) is linked to a corresponding request for information by the concerned person and the existence of data collection within the meaning of article 3 (lit. g), Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection. Insofar as the documents from the internal investigation recognisably relate to a specific person, there is in principle a right to information concerning these documents. Subject to certain conditions, the right to information may be denied, restricted or postponed by law (article 9 paragraph 1, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). For example, such documents and reports may also affect the confidentiality and protection interests of third parties, such as other employees. Based on the employer's duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations), the employer is required to protect them by taking appropriate measures (eg, by making appropriate redactions before handing out copies of the respective documents (article 9 paragraph 1 (lit. b), Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection)).[4] Furthermore, the employer may refuse, restrict or defer the provision of information where the company’s interests override the employee’s, and not disclose personal data to third parties (article 9 paragraph 4, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). The right to information is also not subject to the statute of limitations, and individuals may waive their right to information in advance (article 8 paragraph 6, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). If there are corresponding requests, the employer must generally grant access, or provide a substantiated decision on the restriction of the right of access, within 30 days (article 8 paragraph 5, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection and article 1 paragraph 4, Ordinance to the Federal Act on Data Protection).

The employee must be able to effectively challenge the allegations against them. They should be given the terms of reference for the investigation, and any relevant documentary evidence, including copies of witness statements.

Subject to any internal policies and terms of the employment contract, an employer would have discretion as to whether the identity of the complainant, witnesses or sources of information for the investigation should be kept confidential. In general, the employer should consider how the confidential treatment or its absence would affect the conduct and outcome of the investigation. The disclosure of the identity of the complainant in some cases may be necessary for the employee under investigation to respond in a meaningful way. On the other hand, both the complainant and witnesses may be more forthcoming in providing information if he or she is assured that his or her identity will not be made known to the person under investigation (especially if the latter is senior management personnel). A balance should be struck between the interests of the complainant or witnesses in maintaining confidentiality and the need for the employee under investigation to make a proper response to the allegations made. In any case, the employer should follow its whistleblowing policy if there is one (as discussed in question 9), and take into account practical and statutory considerations relating to confidentiality (as discussed in question 10).

As mentioned under Question 10, the employer’s duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations) also entails the employer’s duty to respect and protect the personality (including confidentiality and privacy) and integrity of employees (article 328 paragraph 1, Swiss Code of Obligations) and to take appropriate measures to protect them.

However, in combination with the right to be heard and the right to be informed regarding an investigation, the accused also has the right that incriminating evidence is presented to them throughout the investigation and that they can comment on it. For instance, this right includes disclosure of the persons accusing them and their concrete statements. Anonymisation or redaction of such statements is permissible if the interests of the persons incriminating the accused or the interests of the employer override the accused’ interests to be presented with the relevant documents or statements (see question 11; see also article 9 paragraphs 1 and 4, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). However, a careful assessment of interests is required, and these must be limited to what is necessary. In principle, a person accusing another person must take responsibility for their information and accept criticism from the person implicated by the information provided.[1]

Only in exceptional circumstances, such as where there is a genuine risk of retaliation. Anonymising a complaint puts the employee under investigation at a significant disadvantage, as they may be unable to properly challenge the evidence against them. It can also impair the effectiveness of the investigation. Employers should, therefore, not provide any guarantees of confidentiality to complainants or to employees who are to act as witnesses. That said, employers should think carefully about any necessary disclosure of names or facts. This can be particularly relevant where the witness is subordinate to the employee being investigated.

In general terms, NDAs can be used and indeed are commonly used to keep the fact and substance of a workplace investigation confidential. However, NDAs will not be effective in preventing the disclosure of information which is in the public interest or is important for safeguarding public welfare in matters of health and safety. Further, several laws in Hong Kong provide that disclosures as a result of compliance with a requirement made by the relevant authorities will not be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by contract or otherwise by law.[1]

In addition to the above-mentioned statutory confidentiality obligations, separate non-disclosure agreements can be signed. In an internal investigation, the employee should be expressly instructed to maintain confidentiality.

Only to a limited extent. As a matter of law, NDAs cannot prevent a worker from making a protected disclosure, or reporting a crime to the police. As a matter of the regulatory obligations of solicitors, NDAs should not be used in other ways, including as a means of influencing the content of disclosures, or by using warranties, indemnities and clawback clauses in a way that is designed to, or has the effect of, improperly preventing or inhibiting permitted reporting or disclosures (see the SRA’s warning notice on the use of NDAs).

Legal professional privilege may attach to investigation materials if they are generated for the sole or dominant purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice (legal advice privilege); or created with the sole or dominant purpose of either obtaining or giving advice about or obtaining evidence to be used in an actual or reasonably contemplated litigation (litigation privilege).[1] Legal advice privilege applies to confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, whereas litigation privilege may extend to communications between lawyers, clients and third parties. The employer may withhold disclosure of any materials that are subject to either legal advice or litigation privilege.

In the context of a workplace investigation, internal interview records are protected by legal advice privilege if the dominant purpose of creating those records is to seek legal advice on potential disciplinary action against the employee. Such interview records are protected by litigation privilege if they are created to obtain evidence in an actual or reasonably contemplated litigation.

It should be noted that the point in time at which the sole or dominant purpose is judged is when the document is created. In other words, a document is not covered by litigation privilege if it was not created for litigation purposes but was subsequently used to obtain legal advice for litigation.[2] On a practical point, if the employer would like to minimise disclosure of the investigation by claiming privilege over relevant materials, it may wish to limit the number of documents created and persons to which they are circulated to avoid potential waiver of privilege.

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.

There are two limited types of privilege which may be relevant to investigations:

• Legal Advice Privilege (LAP), which protects communications between lawyers and their clients provided they are confidential and made for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice; and
• Litigation Privilege (LP), which can extend to communications between a lawyer and client or third parties, but only where the dominant purpose of the communication is to prepare for or conduct existing or contemplated litigation.

If the relevant tests for privilege are met and apply to materials generated in the course of the investigation, the employer retains greater control over their subsequent disclosure to third parties. The materials would, for example, be protected against disclosure in any subject access request under the DPA 2018.

That said, privilege can be difficult to maintain in investigations, particularly where litigation is not active or in contemplation. Interview notes and witness statements may not attract privilege, particularly if these were conducted with employees who do not fall within the narrow definition of “the client” for LAP purposes (which is limited to employees who are capable of seeking and receiving advice on behalf of the employer).

If privilege applies to investigation materials, the investigator should keep tight control on what documents are created and how they are circulated, to avoid inadvertent disclosure and potential waiver of privilege.

Bear in mind that even if privilege applies to certain investigation materials, there may be a need to create disclosable documentation at a later stage, particularly if there is a decision to instigate disciplinary action.

Absent any right conferred by the employment contract or the relevant internal policy, employees do not have a right under Hong Kong law to be accompanied or have legal representation during an investigation meeting or interview. While the employee being investigated is entitled to seek his or her own legal advice during the investigation, employers have discretion on whether to allow the employee to be accompanied or represented by his or her legal adviser in an investigation meeting or interview. That said, to ensure fairness in the process and to avoid unnecessary allegations of undue influence, the employer may consider allowing the employee to have legal representatives present, especially if serious allegations are made against the employee and the outcome of the investigation could have a significant impact on the employee’s future.

In the case of an employee involved in an internal investigation, a distinction must be made as to whether the employee is acting purely as an informant or whether there are conflicting interests between the company and the employee involved. If the employee is acting purely as an informant, the employee has, in principle, no right to be accompanied by their own legal representative.[1]

However, if there are conflicting interests between the company and the employee involved, when the employee is accused of any misconduct, the employee must be able to be accompanied by their own legal representative. For example, if the employee's conduct might potentially constitute a criminal offence, the involvement of a legal representative must be permitted.[2] Failure to allow an accused person to be accompanied by a legal representative during an internal investigation, even though the facts in question are relevant to criminal law, raises the question of the admissibility of statements made in a subsequent criminal proceeding. The principles of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code cannot be undermined by alternatively collecting evidence in civil proceedings and thus circumventing the stricter rules applicable in criminal proceedings.[3]

In general, it is advisable to allow the involvement of a legal representative to increase the willingness of the employee involved to cooperate.

There is no statutory right to be accompanied at a disciplinary investigation meeting; the right only applies to disciplinary hearings (section 10 ERA 1999). There is, however, a right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative at any grievance investigation meeting, under section 10, although this is only in respect of the person who raises the grievance (not any person who is the subject of the grievance or other witnesses).

That said, the employer’s policies and contracts should be checked to see if they contain a broader right to be accompanied. Employers may also need to allow a broader right to be accompanied as a reasonable adjustment for disabled employees (for example, to allow family members or medical professionals to be present). Equally, where the allegations are sufficiently serious (eg, criminal, especially if the findings are likely to be shared with the police), it may be appropriate to allow legal representation during the investigation.

Unless the employment contract or the relevant internal policies specify otherwise, there is no automatic right under Hong Kong law for a works council or trade union to be informed or involved in a workplace investigation.

In general, works councils and trade unions are not very common in Switzerland and there are no statutory rules that would provide a works council or trade union a right to be informed or involved in an ongoing internal investigation. However, respective obligations might be foreseen in an applicable collective bargaining agreement, internal regulations or similar.

Aside from the statutory right to be accompanied (see question 15), any further involvement by the works council or trade union would depend on the terms of the relevant works council or trade union recognition agreement.

It could be stressful for employees to be involved in a workplace investigation, whether as the victim, the subject of an investigation or a witness. More transparency in the process would help reduce stress. This could be achieved by providing the relevant employees with the timeline for different stages of the investigation and regular updates.

The employer may also consider providing mental health support to the employees concerned, for example in the form of counselling services or medical consultations. Where appropriate, the employer may also consider making reasonable adjustments to the employee’s workload and work schedule to facilitate his participation in the investigation.

The employer does not generally need to provide specific support for employees that are subject to an internal investigation. The employer may, however, allow concerned employees to be accompanied by a trusted third party such as family members or friends.[1] These third parties will need to sign separate non-disclosure agreements before being involved in the internal investigation.

In addition, a company may appoint a so-called lawyer of confidence who has been approved by the employer and is thus subject to professional secrecy. This lawyer will not be involved in the internal investigation but may look after the concerned employees and give them confidential advice as well as inform them about their rights and obligations arising from the employment relationship.[2]

The employer needs to consider the health and wellbeing of all staff involved in the investigation, since this can be a very stressful process. The employer and investigator can assist by ensuring that all parties are aware of what is expected of them. Timings are also important; having a clear and expeditious timetable and providing updates if the timetable slips will help. Regular catch-ups by managers can be used to monitor how employees are coping. They should be reminded about any resources to help support them, such as employee helplines or employee assistance programmes.

Where an employer has particular concerns about an employee’s health, a referral to occupational health can assist. The employer may also wish to consider whether employees should be given additional time off, or whether any other adjustments can be made to the investigation process. For particularly serious allegations, the employer may consider facilitating the provision of independent legal advice for the employee, or making a contribution towards legal fees.

If unrelated matters are revealed during the investigation, the employer should consider whether an investigation is needed. If yes, the employer should decide whether it is appropriate to incorporate the new matters into the scope of the existing investigation by expanding the terms of reference. However, it may not be appropriate to do so if different individuals are concerned or such inclusion would unduly complicate or delay the progress of the existing investigation. If that is the case, the employer should commence a separate investigation.

There are no regulations in this regard in the Swiss employment law framework. However, in criminal proceedings, the rules regarding accidental findings apply (eg, article 243, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code for searches and examinations or article 278, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code for surveillance of post and telecommunications). In principle, accidental findings are usable, with the caveat of general prohibitions on the use of evidence.

These should typically be disregarded by the investigator. From a data protection perspective, the ICO’s position is that other information collected during an investigation should be disregarded and, where feasible, deleted unless it reveals information that no reasonable employer could be expected to ignore. In those circumstances, the employer should arrange for an independent third party to determine whether a separate investigation into unrelated matters is needed.

As discussed in question 11, an employer owes an implied obligation of trust and confidence towards its employees under common law. This means that an employer cannot disregard a genuine complaint made by an employee even if the employee is under internal investigation. The employer may have put in place an employee grievance handling policy, which should be followed when handling the employee’s grievance.

If the grievance raised relates to how the workplace investigation is being conducted (for example, it is alleged that the investigator has a conflict of interest or is biased), the employer should consider suspending the investigation until this grievance is properly addressed to ensure fairness. However, if the grievance is nothing but an attempt to delay or hinder the investigation, the employer may be entitled to proceed with the investigation regardless. The employer should therefore carefully assess the nature and validity of any grievance raised in each case. The employer should also consider its rights under the employment contract if the employee is being uncooperative or obstructive.

In the context of private internal investigations, grievances initially raised by the employee do not usually have an impact on the investigation.

However, if the employer terminates the employment contract due to a justified legal complaint raised by an employee, a court might consider the termination to be abusive and award the employee compensation in an amount to be determined by the court but not exceeding six months’ pay for the employee (article 336 paragraph 1 (lit. b) and article 337c paragraph 3, Swiss Code of Obligations). Furthermore, a termination by the employer may be challenged if it takes place without good cause following a complaint of discrimination by the employee to a superior or the initiation of proceedings before a conciliation board or a court by the employee (article 10, Federal Act on Gender Equality).

This is a relatively common tactic. The employer will need to decide whether to suspend the investigation to deal with the grievance, or conclude the investigation first, depending on the circumstances. It would usually be difficult to deal with both the grievance and the investigation concurrently, unless the facts overlap significantly.

If the employee becomes uncooperative and refuses to take part in the investigation, they should be told that the investigator may need to make a decision in the absence of their account based on all the other evidence available. The employer may decide to treat it as failure to comply with a reasonable management instruction and take disciplinary action on that basis.

If the employee under investigation goes off sick, the employer should ascertain the medical condition of the employee and when he or she is likely to return to fitness. If the employee is unlikely to return to work for a reasonable time, the employer should consider what adjustments can be made to the investigation process to continue with the investigation. If the employee’s input is necessary for the conclusion of the investigation, the employer may invite the employee to provide information by way of a written questionnaire or to attend a virtual meeting. However, the employee may not necessarily agree to these proposals, especially if he or she is unwell. In such circumstances, the employer may not be able to conclude the investigation in the absence of the employee.

The time spent on the internal investigation by the employee should be counted as working time[1]. The general statutory and internal company principles on sick leave apply. Sick leave for which the respective employee is not responsible must generally be compensated (article 324a paragraph 1 and article 324b, Swiss Code of Obligations). During certain periods of sick leave (blocking period), the employer may not ordinarily terminate the employment contract; however, immediate termination for cause remains possible.

The duration of the blocking period depends on the employee's seniority, amounting to 30 days in the employee's first year of service, 90 days in the employee's second to ninth year of service and 180 days thereafter (article 336c paragraph 1 (lit. c), Swiss Code of Obligations).

This is a relatively common occurrence. It would usually be appropriate to suspend the investigation temporarily, to determine how serious the health issue is and when the employee may be fit to return. The investigator should consider what adjustments or allowances can be made to progress the investigation despite the employee’s absence. If their evidence has not yet been gathered, the employee may be invited to provide a written statement instead of attending an investigation meeting, or the meeting could be held remotely or at a neutral location. If none of this is possible, it may be difficult to fully conclude the investigation.  

Where there is a parallel criminal or regulatory investigation, the employer should handle the workplace investigation with extra care and ensure that it complies with all applicable legal requirements or lawful requests made by the relevant authorities concurrently. While there may be reasons why the employer wants to progress with its investigation as soon as possible, the employer should not take any steps that hinder or obstruct the parallel investigations. Therefore, it may be appropriate for the employer to stay its workplace investigation if its continuation may prejudice the parallel investigations.

The employer may also find itself duty-bound to stay the workplace investigation if it is subject to statutory secrecy obligations vis-à-vis the relevant law enforcement agency or regulatory body. As mentioned in question 10, several laws in Hong Kong impose secrecy obligations on any person who has acquired confidential information about certain law enforcement agencies or regulatory bodies and the investigations being conducted. The employer should assess whether they could continue with the workplace investigation without breaching secrecy obligations. The employer should take a prudent approach and may discuss with the relevant authority before proceeding further with its workplace investigation.

Depending on the nature of the matter, authorities in Hong Kong handling a criminal or regulatory investigation may be empowered to seize, or compel persons who are the subject of an investigation or assisting in such an investigation (which may include the employer) to produce, documents or evidence that are relevant to the matters being investigated. For example:

• the police or the Independent Commission Against Corruption may, under a search warrant (or in certain circumstances, without a warrant), inspect and take possession of articles or documents inside the premise of the employer they reasonably suspect to be of value to the investigation of the suspected offence; and
• the SFC or the Competition Commission may, under the SFO or Competition Ordinance (as applicable), require the employee under investigation or the employer to produce documents, attend interviews, and, specifically for the SFC, provide the investigator with all assistance he or she ­­­can give. Both authorities may also obtain a warrant from the Hong Kong courts to search the premise of the employer and obtain documents or information it reasonably believes to be relevant to its investigation.

Documents created and evidence gathered by the employer during its workplace investigation (such as witness statements or investigation reports) may be subject to production requests of, or may be seized by, the authorities mentioned above (unless legal professional privilege is attached). The employer should ensure that it complies with all lawful requests from the authorities.

The actions of the employer may carry through to a subsequent state proceeding. First and foremost, any prohibitions on the use of evidence must be considered. Whereas in civil proceedings the interest in establishing the truth must merely prevail for exploitation (article 152 paragraph 2, Swiss Civil Procedure Code), in criminal proceedings, depending on the nature of the unlawful act, there is a risk that the evidence may not be used (see question 27 and article 140 et seq, Swiss Civil Procedure Code).

This situation needs to be handled with caution. It is important to remember that regulatory or criminal proceedings, and employment proceedings, are separate; while there may be an overlap of alleged misconduct, they are usually addressing different questions, with different standards of proof. The outcome in one should not, therefore, be treated as determinative of the other.

Where the employee is suspected of, charged with, or convicted of, a criminal or regulatory offence, the employer should still investigate the facts as far as possible, come to a view about them and consider whether the conduct is sufficiently serious to warrant instituting the disciplinary procedure.

In terms of timing, there are no concrete rules governing how an employer must proceed in the circumstances of a parallel criminal investigation. Much will depend upon the circumstances of the case, the length of delay, the size of and resources available to the employer, and the preferences (if expressed) of the external authority. If the employer is concerned about prejudicing the regulatory or criminal proceedings or otherwise prefers to wait for their conclusion before instigating internal proceedings, they are unlikely to be criticised for delaying. The accused employee may also be advised not to provide a statement in the workplace investigation for fear of a negative impact on the criminal investigation. This would make it difficult to proceed with the workplace investigation, unless the employer is confident it has strong enough evidence to justify any disciplinary action subsequently taken.

On the other hand, regulatory or criminal investigations may take months or years to progress; it may not be realistic for the employer to keep any investigation in abeyance for so long. This is particularly true when the accused employee is suspended on full pay, witness recollections will grow less reliable, and the alleged victim may feel unable to return to work until the matter is resolved.

In these circumstances, the employer may continue with their investigation if they believe it is reasonable to do so, and consultations have commenced with the external agency. The court will usually only intervene if the employee can show that the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings will give rise to a real danger that there would be a miscarriage of justice in the criminal proceedings.

Employers should consider carefully whether and when to involve the police in allegations of employee misconduct. Employers must be careful not to subject their employees to the heavy burden of potential criminal proceedings without the most careful consideration, and a genuine and reasonable belief that the case, if established, might justify the epithet “criminal” being applied to the employee's conduct.

Where the police are called in, they should not be asked to conduct any investigation on behalf of the employer, nor should they be present at any meeting or disciplinary meeting. The employer should, however, communicate with the police to see if they have a strong view about whether the internal process should be stayed, or whether they should interview witnesses first.

The employer is generally not obliged under Hong Kong law to inform the employee under investigation of the outcome of the investigation absent any express obligation under the employment contract, even where the investigation has led to a decision to terminate the employee. However, to avoid any unnecessary claim of unlawful dismissal or dismissal without a valid reason, the employer should inform the employee of the reason for his or her termination, even if the investigation results may not be shared in full with the employee.

Workplace investigations often result in an investigation report that is intended to serve as the basis for any measures to be taken by the company's decisionmakers.

The employee's right to information based on article 8, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection also covers the investigation report, provided that the report and the data contained therein relate to the employee.[1] In principle, the employee concerned is entitled to receive a written copy of the entire investigation report free of charge (article 8 paragraph 5, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection and article 1 et seq, Ordinance to the Federal Act on Data Protection). Redactions may be made where the interests of the company or third parties so require, but they are the exception and must be kept to a minimum.[2]

The employee would usually get a copy of the investigation report (which would typically have the relevant evidence considered by the investigator annexed to the report, unless the report is privileged). It is not usual practice to allow the employee to make representations on the report before it is finalised.

The report will set out what facts the investigator was able to establish by reference to the available evidence. The investigator’s role is to gather and consider evidence about what did or did not happen, so the employer can understand if there is a case to answer. This is distinct from determining culpability, which is something for the manager conducting the disciplinary hearing (not the investigator) to determine, in addition to deciding any disciplinary sanction.

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.

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]

The answer to this depends on whether or not privilege attaches to the report, as well as whether criminal proceedings are contemplated – if so, there may be a danger of waiver of privilege, or witness evidence being contaminated if they have an opportunity to read each other’s evidence as part of the report. This could inhibit the fairness of any subsequent criminal trial.

If the outcome of the investigation reveals that misconduct has been committed by the employee, the employer may consider whether it should allow the employee to defend him or herself against such findings. If the employment contract or relevant internal policies specify a right to be heard on the part of the employee through a disciplinary hearing before any actions can be taken against him or her, such procedures should be followed.

Assuming the employer maintains its findings that the employee has committed misconduct after the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing (if any), the employer may consider taking one of the following disciplinary actions against the employee depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct:

• Verbal or written warning – this is a common form of disciplinary action. The employer may consider including the nature of the misconduct and the potential consequences of repeating such misconduct (for example, termination of employment) in the warning to be given to the employee;
• Termination with notice – the EO allows employers and employees to terminate the employment with notice. It is not necessary to give reasons for the termination unless the employee concerned has been employed for at least 24 months, in which case the employer shall demonstrate a valid reason for the termination as defined under the EO;
• Suspension – the employer may suspend the employee without pay for up to 14 days in circumstances where the misconduct concerned justifies a summary dismissal, or where a decision on summary dismissal is pending. The employee may also be suspended where there is a criminal proceeding against him or her relevant to the investigation, until the conclusion of the criminal proceeding (as discussed in question 3);[1] and
• Summary dismissal – the employer may terminate an employment contract without notice if the employee is found to have:
  • wilfully disobeyed a lawful and reasonable order;
  • failed to duly and faithfully discharge his duties;
  • committed fraud or acted dishonesty; or
  • been habitually neglectful in his duties.[2]

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.

The investigator may recommend further action, but should not decide whether allegations are true, or suggest a possible sanction or prejudge what the outcome of any subsequent disciplinary process would be.

The employer will need to consider whether it is necessary to commence disciplinary proceedings. For regulated businesses, there may be an obligation to inform their regulator of the investigation outcome. In some circumstances, the employer may feel the need to make an internal or external announcement about the outcome, and any action it intends to take to implement any recommendations made by the investigator. There may also need to be certain updates to policies or procedures as a result of the investigation.

As mentioned in questions 21, 22 and 23, under Hong Kong law, the employer is generally not obliged to actively disclose the findings of a workplace investigation to any party.

Having said that, the employer should be aware of certain statutory disclosure requirements that may become applicable as a result of the matters revealed during the workplace investigation. For example, if the investigation reveals or gives rise to any knowledge or suspicion that any property represents the proceeds of an indictable offence[1], drug trafficking[2], or terrorism[3], the employer is required to report its knowledge or suspicion, together with any matter on which that knowledge or suspicion is based, to the JFIU as soon as is reasonably practicable (even where the investigation has not yet been concluded). Employers who are licensed corporations must also provide the SFC with information about whether departing licensed employees were the subject of an internal investigation in the six months prior to his/her departure. If the internal investigation commences after the departure of the licensed employee, the licensed corporation should notify the SFC as soon as practicable[4].

In any event, as in question 14, if any documents related to the investigation are protected by legal professional privilege, they can generally be kept confidential and would not be subject to disclosure even if the employer is subject to a mandatory reporting or disclosure obligation.

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]

Primarily, the investigation findings are disclosed to the employer and the employee under investigation. In scenarios involving allegations of a breach of regulatory duty or criminal law, the authorities may have the power to compel disclosure of any non-privileged materials generated in the investigation. Powers of compulsion do not apply to privileged materials.

There is no legal requirement in Hong Kong on this. However, since the investigation records will likely contain personal data, employers should be mindful of the requirement under the PDPO that personal data should not be kept for longer than necessary.[1]

According to the Code of Practice on Human Resources Management published by the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, generally, employment data about an employee can be kept for the entire duration of his or her employment, plus a recommended period of no more than seven years after the employee leaves employment unless there is a subsisting reason that justifies a longer retention period. A longer retention period may be justified where there is ongoing litigation or a parallel investigation. Even where it is deemed necessary to retain the outcome of the investigation concerning a departed employee, the employer should ensure that other personal data on the employee’s record (that is unrelated to the purpose of retention) are erased after the expiry of the recommended retention period.

From an employment law point of view, there is no statute of limitations on the employee's violations. Based on the specific circumstances (eg, damage incurred, type of violation, basis of trust or the position of the employee), a decision must be made as to the extent to which the outcome should remain on the record.

From a data protection point of view, only data that is in the interest of the employee (eg, to issue a reference letter) may be retained during the employment relationship. In principle, stored data must be deleted after the termination of the employment relationship. Longer retention may be justified if rights are still to be safeguarded or obligations are to be fulfilled in the future (eg, data needed regarding foreseeable legal proceedings, data required to issue a reference letter or data in relation to a non-competition clause).[1]

The investigation outcome may not need to be noted on the accused employee’s record at all. Usually only the outcome of any subsequent disciplinary or grievance process would be noted, rather than the prior investigation.

The employer should keep the investigation report for as long as it remains relevant. This would usually be no longer than six years, unless regulatory obligations dictate otherwise. The report along with all documentation and witness statements gathered during the investigation should be retained securely and confidentially but for no longer than is absolutely necessary under the requirements of the DPA 2018 and the employer's data protection policies and procedures. There may be additional retention requirements in a regulated context; the position for each particular business and employee should be checked.

If the employer failed to comply with a requirement that is expressly stipulated in the employment contract or employee handbook (such as a procedural requirement to hold a disciplinary hearing or to provide certain information to the employee), the employer could be liable for breaching an express term in the employment contract.

Even where the employment contract does not contain express provisions for the conduct of an internal investigation, the employer is under an implied obligation of trust and confidence under common law (as discussed in question 11), which requires it to conduct the investigation and reach its findings reasonably and rationally in accordance with the evidence available and in good faith.[1] If the employer reached a decision that no reasonable employer would have reached, the conduct of the investigation may be in breach of the employer’s implied obligation of trust and confidence.

If the error in the investigation has led to a termination of employment (whether by way of summary dismissal or termination by notice), the employee may be able to bring a statutory claim for wrongful dismissal, unlawful dismissal or dismissal without a valid reason (as applicable).[2] If such a claim is successful, in addition to ordering the employer to pay monetary compensation, the court or tribunal may also make a reinstatement order (an order that the employee shall be treated as if he had not been dismissed) or re-engagement order (an order that the employee shall be re-engaged in employment on terms comparable to his or her original terms of employment) for the affected employee.

The employer may also be liable for unlawful discrimination under Hong Kong law if the investigation has been conducted in a discriminatory manner or the outcome of the investigation reflects differential and less favourable treatment of the employee concerned based on grounds of sex, marital status, disability, family status or race.

As there are no specific regulations for internal investigations, the usual legal framework within which the employer must act towards the employee derives from general rules such as the employer's duty of care, the employee's duty of loyalty and the employee's data protection rights.

But, for example, unwarranted surveillance could conceivably result in criminal liability (article 179 et seq, Swiss Criminal Code) for violations of the employee's privacy. Furthermore, errors made by the employer could have an impact on any later criminal proceedings (eg, in the form of prohibitions on the use of evidence).[1]

Evidence obtained unlawfully may only be used in civil proceedings if there is an overriding interest in establishing the truth (article 152 paragraph 2, Swiss Civil Procedure Code). Consequently, in each case, a balance must be struck between the individual’s interest in not using the evidence and in establishing the truth.[2] The question of the admissibility of evidence based on an unlawful invasion of privacy is a sensitive one – admissibility in this case is likely to be accepted only with restraint.[3] Since the parties in civil proceedings do not have any means of coercion at their disposal, it is not necessary, in contrast to criminal proceedings, to examine whether the evidence could also have been obtained by legal means.[4]

Unlawful action by the employer may also have consequences on future criminal proceedings: The prohibitions on exploitation (article 140 et seq, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code) apply a priori only to evidence obtained directly from public authorities. Evidence obtained unlawfully by private persons (ie, the employer) may also be used if it could have been lawfully obtained by the authority and if the interest in establishing the truth outweighs the interest of the individual in not using the evidence.[5] Art. 140 paragraph 1 Swiss Criminal Procure Code remains reserved: Evidence obtained in violation of Art. 140 paragraph 1 Swiss Criminal Procure Code is subject to an absolute ban on the use of evidence (e.g. evidence obtained under the use of torture[6]).[7]

A reasonable investigation is a key component of a fair disciplinary process. Errors in the investigation could therefore expose the employer to liability for unfair dismissal under ERA 1996.

Failure to follow the ACAS Code does not automatically make an employer liable in any proceedings taken against it. However, an employment tribunal will take the ACAS Code into account when deciding whether an employer has behaved fairly, and has the power to increase awards by up to 25% where it believes an employer has unreasonably failed to follow the ACAS Code's provisions.

There may be liability for breach of the employee’s contract of employment if the employer breaches aspects of the investigation policy that are contractual, any contractual provisions relating to suspension, or otherwise conducts the investigation in a manner that breaches the implied term of trust and confidence.

There may be liability under the EA 2010 if the investigation is conducted in a discriminatory manner, which could include not making reasonable adjustments to the process for disabled employees.

Where the investigation involves protected disclosures, there may be liability under the whistleblowing provisions of ERA 1996 if the whistleblower is subjected to detriment or dismissal on the grounds of their protected disclosures.

Improper evidence gathering or processing may be actionable under the DPA 2018, IPA 2016 or the IP Regs 2018.

Finally, there may be common law claims in some circumstances (for example where reports need to be made to regulators, which in turn may affect the relevant employee’s future employment prospects) for defamation, or, more unusually, for stress-related personal injury.