Workplace Investigations

A criminal investigation always takes precedence over other investigations. However, this does not mean that the internal investigation has to stop. It can and should continue, and the report drawn up upon completion of the investigation could be used by the authorities in the criminal investigation. In some cases, especially when privilege does not apply, police or regulatory authorities may request that the employer share such evidence. However, even when privilege does apply, there is no certainty that the evidence would not have to be communicated to certain authorities.

Some administrative authorities often challenge the application of legal privilege or try to reduce its scope. For example, the French financial markets authority (AMF) regularly puts forward its view of legal privilege, according to which an email where a lawyer is only copied (and is not one of the main recipients) in from one of their clients is not confidential and can therefore be disclosed in proceedings. However, if the AMF investigators impose disclosure of privileged documents, this should result in the annulment of the investigation procedure. By way of exception, legal privilege cannot be invoked against certain other authorities, such as the URSSAF (authority in charge of collecting social security contributions) or the DGCCRF (directorate-general for competition, consumer protection and anti-fraud investigations). Where legal privilege is enforceable, the judge must first determine whether the documents constitute correspondence relating to defence rights and, second, must cancel the seizure of documents that they find to be covered by legal privilege due to the principle of professional secrecy of relations between a lawyer and their client and the rights of defence.

Often the tests or standards applied by external agencies (such as the police or regulators) in their investigations vary significantly in comparison to those that apply for internal investigations that are focused on potential disciplinary action against an accused employee. For example, the standard of proof required for taking an internal disciplinary measure is one of a preponderance of probability and does not require the employer to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard applied in criminal proceedings. Depending on the circumstances, conducting or continuing an internal investigation can also place the organisation in a better position to collaborate with external agencies such as the police or a regulator in their investigations, and be better prepared to share information that such agencies may request. It may also help demonstrate that the organisation does not tolerate potential violations of law or its policies and that it proactively investigates and addresses such issues. This may also help in protecting innocent members of management from liability from external agencies. To that extent, a parallel criminal or regulatory investigation may not normally be a reason for the organisation to suspend its internal investigation.

In the context of sexual harassment claims, the complainant has the right to file a police complaint against the alleged harasser (and the organisation must support  her in doing so). However, a parallel police investigation would not take away the organisation's responsibility to address the grievances through its IC, which would be expected to complete its proceedings within 90 days.  

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).

If the outcome of the internal investigation has led to the sanctioning of an employee, this sanction may no longer be invoked to support a new sanction after three years. Moreover, under the GDPR principles, the duration of retention must be proportional to the use of the data. Therefore, the data must be retained only for a period that is “strictly necessary and proportionate”. If the employer wants to keep information about the investigation in the longer term, it is possible to archive the employee’s record even though the employer will no longer be able to use it against the employee after three years.

There is no statutory guidance on this. It is common for employers to retain details of disciplinary proceedings on an employee's record for the entire duration of their employment.

It is also advisable to retain the details of any investigations or disciplinary proceedings for at least three years after an individual has been dismissed on account of such proceedings, as this is the general limitation period for raising claims of unfair dismissal. In labour matters, courts in India often allow delays in filing suit after the limitation period, meaning organisations sometimes make a practical call to retain details of investigations and disciplinary proceedings for longer.

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]