Workplace Investigations

Court precedent states that a valid requirement for a stay-at-home order is it “would not be considered to put employees at a legal disadvantage (deprive them of their rights and imposes obligations on them), except in exceptional cases where employees are legally entitled to request work, unless there are special circumstances such as discrimination in salary increases and the like." (Tokyo High Court decision 25 January 2012, All Japan Mariners' Union). Therefore, it is considered possible to order the employee to stay at home during the investigation period if necessary. Some companies stipulate in their work rules that they may order employees to take special leave or stay at home when an incident occurs that could be the subject of disciplinary action.

In principle, the payment of salary in full during the stay-at-home period is required. However, work rules may stipulate that an employee will not be paid during the investigation period, and in cases where the employee is clearly responsible and it is inappropriate to allow the employee to work (eg, where it is almost certain that the employee has embezzled money on the job), the employee may be ordered to stay at home without pay. In addition, if the work rules stipulate that an absence allowance under the Labour Standards Law (60% or more of wages) must be paid for the stay-at-home period, such an allowance may be paid under the said rules.

Yes. Section 14(1) read with 14(8) of the Employment Act 1968 provides that an employee can be suspended during a workplace investigation

However, pursuant to section 14(8) of the Employment Act 1968, the employer:

• may suspend the employee from work for:
  • a period not exceeding one week; or
  • such longer period as the Commissioner for Labour may determine on an application by the employer; but
• must pay the employee at least half the employee’s salary during the period the employee is suspended from work.

Section 14(9) of the Employment Act 1968 further states that if the inquiry does not disclose any misconduct on the employee’s part, the employer must immediately restore to the employee the full amount of the withheld salary.

In addition to the above legislative requirements, the company is required to also comply with its policies relating to such suspensions.

In terms of the threshold to be crossed before a suspension can take place, the Singapore Courts have highlighted that suspending an employee quickly as part of a “knee-jerk” reaction to an unclear or unspecific allegation with dubious credibility is arguably a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence that exists in all employment relationships ([56] of Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another [2021] SGHC 123). The employer would need to have proper and reasonable cause to suspend an employee for disciplinary purposes ([56(d)] of Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem Technology Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 577; [2013] SGHC 32), for example, where multiple credible sources claimed that they had been sexually harassed by an employee, and the employer had strong grounds to believe that if the employee was not suspended, the safety and wellbeing of the other employees in the organisation would be threatened.

In contrast, an employer is not entitled to suspend an employee during a workplace investigation where the employer has only received one complaint that has not been properly described or substantiated with sufficient details from an unverified or unreliable source against an employee who has a good track record with the organisation. This is especially so if the complaint is so unclear that further inquiries should be made before the allegation can be properly ascertained and characterised (see also [51] of Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another [2021] SGHC 123).

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.

There are no specific qualifications or requirements for an investigator. In many cases, the investigation is handled by a department or employee as deemed appropriate by the company. In some cases, an outside attorney may be asked to handle the investigation. Also, when it is a serious matter for the company, a third-party committee may be formed and commissioned to conduct an investigation.

However, under the revision of the Whistleblower Protection Act, which came into effect in June 2022, entities employing 300 or more employees must designate a person (whistleblower response service employee) in charge of accepting internal whistleblowing reports, investigating internal whistleblowing reports, or taking corrective measures as a whistleblower response service provider. Entities with less than 300 employees must also make an effort to do the same.

The person designated as a whistleblower response service provider must not divulge the name, employee ID number, or other information that would enable whistleblower identification without a justifiable reason. Criminal penalties (fines of up to 300,000 yen) have been established for violations of this confidentiality obligation.

While there are no prescribed minimum qualifications or criteria that need to be met for any person conducting a workplace investigation, the person handling employee grievances should be someone who:

• has been authorised and empowered to do so by the employer;
• is not in a position of actual or potential conflict; and
• is independent and impartial.

The grievance handler should be familiar with the organisation’s investigative procedure, have attended the relevant training to ensure full compliance with the same; and have a good understanding of the expectations and norms set out by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices.

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.