Workplace Investigations

An employee may be suspended or relocated during a workplace investigation by:

• suspending the employee as a precautionary measure (eg, pending a confirmation of dismissal);
• temporarily assigning the employee to another site; or
• exempting the employee from having to work while continuing to pay them their salary.

The employee can be suspended as a precautionary measure, pending confirmation of dismissal, but this implies that disciplinary proceedings have already begun and that the investigation is therefore at a relatively advanced stage and that there is sufficient evidence to suggest the need for disciplinary action. It should be made clear to the employee that the suspension is a provisional measure (in the absence of specifying this, the suspension could be interpreted as a disciplinary layoff constituting a sanction and, in some jurisdictions, as depriving the employer of the possibility of dismissing the employee for the same facts).

Temporary reassignment can also be considered. However, this contractual change must not apply for long and the measure taken must be temporary. The employer must act promptly – the measure is only valid for as long as the investigation continues. Failing this, and because of the absence of concurrent disciplinary proceedings, there is considerable risk that the temporary reassignment may be reclassified by a judge as an illegal modification of the employment contract or as a disciplinary sanction preventing the employee from subsequently being dismissed.

Finally, paid exemption from work is also possible and consists of temporarily suspending, by mutual agreement, the obligation of the employer to provide work for the employee and the employee’s obligation to work, without affecting their remuneration. Such a measure must generally be taken with the consent of the employee, because it implies a suspension (and therefore a modification) of the employment contract. This measure may be useful in temporarily removing an employee with whom the employer maintains a good relationship. This may be an employee who is or feels they are a victim of harassment, especially when the employee is not on sick leave.

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.

An employee can be suspended during a workplace investigation provided his or her prior written consent is obtained to this effect during or immediately before the investigation. Obtaining a generic written consent from the employee regarding suspension, which is not tied to a specific event, will not be valid. If there is a suspension of employment due to the workplace investigation, the obligations of the parties arising from the employment relationship continue, except for the employer’s obligation to pay a salary (and provide benefits, if any) and the employees’ duty to perform work.

There is no provision or established court decision setting forth the rules regarding the length of the suspension period; however, as a general rule, this period should be as brief as possible, so as not to cause any impression that the employment relationship has been terminated by the employer. Suspension of an employee on full pay during a workplace investigation, which is also known as garden leave, is a commonly used alternative to a conventional suspension method described above. During the garden leave period, an employee can be banned from entering the workplace and performing any of his or her duties either partially or entirely while continuing to be paid his or her regular salary, along with fringe benefits. Garden leave is not a concept regulated under Turkish employment legislation, but rather developed in practice, mostly by the Turkish subsidiaries of multinational companies. An ideal approach for the implementation of garden leave would be to obtain the written consent of the employees either at the commencement of employment or during the investigation.

The grievance may also have to be investigated (eg, moral/sexual harassment reported by an employee under investigation).

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).

If, during the investigation, the employee under investigation raises a grievance, the investigator will be expected to temporarily stop the investigation to assess the situation. The investigation team will evaluate whether the employee is raising a grievance as a defence mechanism or in good faith and with sincere concerns. If the subject of the grievance is related to the pending investigation, the investigation may be extended to cover this new item. Otherwise, a new investigation can be initiated by the investigation team.

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.

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 issues being examined during an investigation are also subject to parallel criminal or regulatory investigation, the workplace investigation will probably be stayed. This is primarily because parallel criminal or regulatory investigations would necessitate a more comprehensive examination and public bodies overseeing such investigations have a broader legal prerogative to gather evidence. It is, therefore, advisable to stay the internal investigation to not interfere with the criminal or regulatory authorities. If a prosecutor or a court requires the employer to give evidence or share certain documents, the police can compel the employer to share evidence. Regulatory bodies may also ask the employer to share evidence and the powers conferred on such regulatory bodies will be a determining factor in whether they can compel the employer.