Workplace Investigations
Contributing Editors
Workplace investigations are growing in number, size and complexity. Employers are under greater scrutiny as of the importance of ESG rises. Regulated industries such as finance, healthcare and legal face additional hurdles, but public scrutiny of businesses and how they treat their people across the board has never been higher. Conducting a fair and thorough workplace investigation is therefore critical to the optimal operation, governance and legal exposure of every business.
IEL’s Guide to Workplace Investigations examines key issues that organisations need to consider as they initiate, conduct and conclude investigations in 29 major jurisdictions around the world.
Learn more about the response taken in specific countries or build your own report to compare approaches taken around the world.
Choose countries
Select specific jurisdictions to filter on
Choose questions
Choose the questions you would like answering, or choose all for the full picture.
09. What additional considerations apply when the investigation involves whistleblowing?
09. What additional considerations apply when the investigation involves whistleblowing?
Flag / Icon
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
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.
Flag / Icon
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
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.
Download your results as a PDF
Download as pdf link
Contributors
Australia
People + Culture Strategies
Austria
GERLACH
Belgium
Van Olmen & Wynant
Brazil
CGM
China
Jingtian & Gongcheng
Finland
Roschier
France
Bredin Prat
Germany
Hengeler Mueller
Greece
Karatzas & Partners
Hong Kong
Slaughter and May
India
Trilegal
Ireland
Ogier
Italy
BonelliErede
Japan
Mori Hamada & Matsumoto
Netherlands
De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
Nigeria
Bloomfield LP
Philippines
Villaraza & Angangco
Poland
WKB Lawyers
Portugal
Uría Menéndez - Proença de Carvalho
Singapore
Rajah & Tann Singapore
South Korea
Kim & Chang
Spain
Uría Menéndez
Sweden
Mannheimer Swartling
Switzerland
Bär & Karrer
Thailand
Chandler MHM
Turkey
Paksoy
United Kingdom
Slaughter and May
United States
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Vietnam
Le & Tran Law Corporation
Contributors
Switzerland
Bär & Karrer
United Kingdom
Slaughter and May