Workplace Investigations

Yes, in matters pertaining to sexual harassment, the SH Act expressly stipulates that the IC holds the powers of a civil court to summon any person to be examined as a witness. In misconduct cases, the investigating authority can ask employees to appear and testify before it as witnesses and internal policies should have provisions for this. As a result, employees are duty-bound to fairly and honestly participate in any investigative or disciplinary proceedings relating to the workplace, including offering truthful evidence and testimony on matters they may have observed or experienced as an employee of the organisation. While employees don't have any express statutory protections when acting as witnesses, any such policy should be balanced and include necessary safeguards, such as assuring employees that any retaliation against them will not be tolerated and that the details of their participation will only be shared on a need-to-know basis.  

In general, yes, employees in Sweden have a far-reaching duty of loyalty toward their employers. This includes, among other things, a duty to truthfully answer an employer’s questions and to inform the employer of events that may be of interest to the employer. An employee’s obligation to assist is, however, more limited when assistance would entail self-incrimination.

A person acting as a witness under an investigation governed by the Swedish Whistleblowing Act will be protected by confidentiality. Personal data and details that could reveal the identity of a witness may not be disclosed without authorisation.

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]

Professional advice given by an "advocate" to a client is protected as “privileged communication” and is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. Such privilege may not attach to advice or communications involving in-house lawyers as they are not licensed advocates (since they are expected to surrender their bar licences when they take on in-house roles). This is a grey area as there are conflicting judicial precedents on this. Hence, communications, documents or information gathered during an investigation conducted entirely internally may not be legally privileged and may be discoverable in a dispute. That said, companies generally mark sensitive communications with in-house attorneys as privileged and confidential in an attempt to protect the same.

For the above reasons, investigations conducted by external advocates have better chances of retaining legal privilege. However, the following will not be treated as privileged information:

• any correspondence about the commission of a crime or fraud by the client; and
• the observations of an attorney that would suggest that a crime or fraud will be committed by the client.

Attorney-client privilege will apply to all communication and investigative material between a client and its law firm. Attorney-client privilege is, however, not without limitations. Regarding investigations into alleged employee misconduct, a law firm may have to report suspected money laundering to the authorities and under certain circumstances disclose information to the financial police.

Written material covered by attorney-client privilege generally may not be seized.

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 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.

Under the GDPR personal data may not, according to the general principle on storage limitation, be retained for longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed. The GDPR does not stipulate a generally applicable storage limitation period. Such a regulation is, on the other hand, included in the Swedish Whistleblowing Act. If the Swedish Whistleblowing Act applies, the outcome of the investigation and all personal data should be retained for as long as necessary, but not for longer than two years after the investigation has been closed.

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]