Workplace Investigations

A workplace investigation will generally be triggered by an employee making a complaint; however, issues may also be brought to the attention of an employer through an anonymous tip, by suppliers or contractors, from customers or because of observations and hearsay.

Complaints can be made directly to Human Resources (HR), anonymously, by email to a line manager or a third party. While complaints do not need to be written and can be informal, brief or verbal, complaints of this nature can make the process harder and more information may be required.

The receipt of a complaint does not necessarily mean that an employer needs to undertake an investigation immediately. A grievance policy ordinarily contains a multi-step approach to dealing with complaints, starting with internal resolution options such as informal discussions, conciliation and mediation. However, an investigation should be commenced where:

• the complaint alleges serious misconduct or unlawful conduct;
• the employer is required to conduct a workplace investigation as per an employment contract, policy, procedure or industrial instrument; or
• the complaint is complex and requires clarity on what has occurred to establish the facts.

In general, an internal investigation is only initiated if there is suspicion of a violation. The decision to commence an internal investigation is up to the company, and it has to weigh the pros and cons. For limited liability companies, which are subject to the Association Responsibility Act, an internal investigation may exempt them from criminal liability. Disadvantages may include investigation costs, disruption of operations, discovery of information requiring later disclosure, possible negative media coverage and increased risk of exposure to external parties.

Investigations can relate to specific individuals, departments, or the entire company. An investigation may include various measures, such as obtaining and analysing files and documents, conducting questionnaires and employee interviews, monitoring internet use, video or telephone surveillance of employees and setting up whistleblowing hotlines. Not all measures are acceptable without restrictions. The provisions of labour law and data protection law must always be complied with.

To avoid wasting resources, the objectives of the investigation should be defined in advance. In addition, the selection and sequence of instruments to be used should be determined. A legal assessment of the chosen measures is essential to avoid legal complications.

First, the employer should appoint an investigator or investigative team that will be responsible for conducting the investigation. Next, the employer or the investigators might think about communicating with the involved employees. It depends on the situation if this is a good idea or not. In general, it can be recommended that the employer is transparent towards the involved employees and openly communicates about the (start of the) investigation process. This is definitively the case if it is already clear that the involved employees are under scrutiny because of their actions. In this case, the actual investigation can begin with a hearing of the involved employees. However, if there is a risk that employees will hide or destroy evidence or will collude to prevent the employer from finding the truth, the investigation can also start without any communication. In this case, it would be better to start collecting evidence before hearing from the employees involved.

Workplace investigations usually commence on the receipt of an allegation, which can be presented orally or in writing to an assigned member of the company (usually, within the HR, Compliance or Legal Departments, or to a direct supervisor) or via an external channel, as determined by the company’s policy.

The employer will generally obtain clues of employees' misconduct, actively or passively, through such means as internal audit, employee whistleblowing, whistleblowing from suppliers or partners, regular or irregular compliance management assessment of the employer and management concerns, and carry out investigation based on such clues. Meanwhile, the employer will further investigate whether the employees involved have committed other acts of misconduct.

The investigation is usually carried out from outside to inside and from the macro level to the specific level. That is to first interview the provider of the clues and other insiders for verification and obtaining further information. Then to conduct internal and external system and written documents review based on the investigation clues. Preliminary evidence will be formed after the basic verification of facts. Finally, the employer will interview the employees involved and listen to their explanations, and finally determine the subsequent handling method.

When the employer becomes aware of possible misconduct, the employer must commence an investigation immediately, in practice within about two weeks. The information may come to the employer's knowledge via, for example, the employer's own observations, from the complainant or their colleagues or an employee representative.

When a report of wrongdoing is brought to the employer's attention, whether through a whistleblower or another channel, and an internal investigation is expected, it may be either mandatory or optional, depending on the facts of the alleged wrongdoing.

The investigation will be mandatory when the alleged wrongdoing relates to an ethical issue according to anti-corruption regulations, the employer’s duty of due diligence regarding, for example, human rights or environmental matters, or where the works council has issued an alert relating to a “serious and imminent danger” (or to “fundamental human rights”), but also whenever it relates to the employer's obligation to ensure employee safety (eg, moral or sexual harassment).

If the investigation is not mandatory, it is up to the employer to decide whether or not to carry out the investigation. Several key questions can help the employer determine whether or not it is appropriate to carry out an investigation, such as:

• What are the benefits of doing nothing? The company will have to draw up a list of the pros and cons of an investigation, bearing in mind that in some cases a poorly conducted investigation could make the situation worse;
• What is the priority (eg, obtaining or securing evidence, or correcting the irregularity)?
• What rules or codes of ethics must the company comply with?
• Should external legal counsel only advise the company or should they play a major role in the investigation process by becoming an investigator?

Typical triggers for a workplace investigation may be internal hints (eg, from employees), internal audits, compliance or the legal department. However, investigations by the public prosecutor or other authorities can also lead to a workplace investigation.

There are no strict guidelines for the course of the investigation. The measures to be taken and the sequence in which they will be carried out to clarify the facts must be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, the first step should be to secure evidence. All relevant documents and records (eg, e-mails, hard disks, text messages, data carriers, copies) should be collected and employees may be interviewed. The second step should be to evaluate the evidence and the third step is to decide how to deal with the results (eg, whether any disciplinary measures should be taken or the intended procedures should be adjusted).

Irrespective of how a workplace investigation is commenced, when it comes to severe breaches of duty by an employee, a two-week exclusion period for issuing a termination for cause must be observed at all stages. This two-week period starts when the employer becomes aware of the relevant facts but is suspended as long as the employer is still investigating and collecting information, provided that the investigation is carried out swiftly.

Internal investigations can be initiated either upon a complaint or report by an employee, (or other persons providing services or seeking employment, etc) in the workplace or by the employer as part of their managerial right.

If from an employee, the complaint or report may fall within the scope of an internal disciplinary procedure, if any, or may concern an alleged workplace violence or harassment incident, or fall within the scope of L.4990/2022 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.  

Reports by whistleblowers are submitted to the manager with responsibility for receiving and monitoring reports, a person appointed for that purpose under L.4990/2022. Complaints for incidents and harassment in the workplace can also be submitted, according to L.4808/2022, to the person or internal body specifically assigned to receive such complaints. Both laws require the employer to define the persons competent for receiving and monitoring complaints or reports and notifying the employees stricto sensu and any other persons falling within the scope of the respective provisions.

The circumstances in which an employer commences a workplace investigation may vary. However, it is common that an employer will consider it necessary to commence a workplace investigation upon receipt of a complaint concerning a fellow employee. Sometimes, the complaint may be made anonymously. If the employer considers there to be substance in the complaint, it may commence an investigation to find out the truth of the matter, resolve the complaint and, if necessary, improve its systems and controls to prevent the reoccurrence of any misconduct.

A workplace investigation may be warranted if the employer receives an enquiry from a regulator concerning its affairs or an employee’s conduct. The investigation findings could enable the employer to respond to the regulator (which could be a mandatory obligation) and at the same time assess its risk exposure.

As a precursor to the actual disciplinary process, investigations are usually initiated when the employer becomes aware of an allegation or complaint of misconduct, or observes any acts or omissions by an employee constituting workplace misconduct. The employer (or investigating committee – which could also be an outside agency like an auditor or law firm appointed by the employer) would generally commence the investigation by speaking with the complainant (or whistleblower) to gather as many details as possible (relevant facts, evidence, list of witnesses, etc) concerning the allegations, so that the next steps and approach can be determined upfront.

Investigations can start in multiple ways. They usually stem from an employee raising a grievance, a bullying complaint, or a possible protected disclosure. Investigations may also stem from the employer in a disciplinary context, or indeed can be commenced if an external complaint or issue is raised by a third party of the organisation.

The first thing the employer must consider is whether an investigation is necessary. It may be that the issue at hand can be resolved informally or is of such a nature that it cannot be investigated, either through a lack of detail or simply because the subject of the complaint is no longer an employee. Any such decision to investigate or not should be carefully documented.

The next step to determine is the nature of the investigation. It should be clear at the outset whether the investigation is simply a fact-gathering exercise or if the investigator will be tasked with making findings on the evidence. The distinction is significant as a fact-gathering investigation can proceed without prompting the full panoply of rights, but the basic principles of fairness should still be applied. A fact-gathering investigation should determine whether there is or is not, a case to answer. If a disciplinary hearing follows then the rights outlined in question 1 will apply at that stage. If it is a fact-finding investigation, the rights apply from the outset of the process. The employee who is required to respond to the issues (the respondent) should be fully aware of the extent of the investigation. The investigator appointed to do the investigation should be clear about what is expected of them.

If the employer believes an investigation is necessary, it should be acknowledged and started without delay. In particular, according to the Protected Disclosures legislation, a report should be acknowledged within seven days.

An employer should consider and identify the scope of the investigation and establish who will investigate the matter. Terms of reference under which the investigation will be carried out should be established by the employer and shared with the employee raising the issue (the complainant). An employer should not seek agreement on the terms, but invite commentary to ensure that the full scope of the investigation is captured within the terms of reference. Robust terms of reference that lay down the clear parameters of the investigation will assist the investigator and all parties involved in the process.

Generally speaking, a workplace investigation can commence either as a consequence of facts reported by employees or third parties (either anonymous or not), for instance within a whistleblowing procedure or as part of normal and periodical activity carried out by internal auditing.

The trigger for an investigation in the workplace may be:

• when an employee makes a report (eg, a report of harassment, a report of misconduct by another employee, etc);
• when an investigation is conducted by the Labour Standards Inspection Office or another regulatory agency;
• when a criminal or illegal act is discovered in the workplace; or
• when an internal audit conducted by the company reveals a problem.

The workplace investigation can be exercised by an internal (ad hoc) investigation department of the company itself, for example under the direction of the internal audit department or compliance department. This is possible if there is sufficient manpower with the necessary independence, knowledge and experience. Case law, however, shows that courts tend to be more critical of internal investigations than external investigations. For more complex and sensitive investigations, a forensic accountant or lawyer is often involved. The advantage of involving a lawyer is that the investigation and its outcome are covered by privilege. This guarantees the confidentiality of the investigation, also regarding supervisors and investigating authorities. Yet, at the same time, there is increasing debate about the role of lawyers as investigators, given their inherent bias to work in the interests of their client (the employer).

The investigation starts with a plan of approach that must be signed by the contractor. This plan of approach outlines the legal framework of the investigation, such as the scope, the means to be used, how it will deal with data, the use of experts, how the interviews will be conducted, the way of reporting and confidentiality. Furthermore, there must be a protocol for how the investigator conducts the investigation and that applies to all parties involved.

Gathering information can be done in various ways. For example:

• An inventory can be made of the household effects of a company. In the event of theft, an inventory can be an appropriate means of establishing exactly what has been stolen.
• An investigation of the books: this is an investigation of all documents of the company. These are not private documents of employees, but documents of the company itself. For an investigator, an interview can be a good way to gather more information, for example by interviewing witnesses. In practice, there are almost always several interviews with the suspects, the employer and other people involved.
• Open source research, which often involves researching a person's social media, or public documents relevant to the research. In principle, “open sources” refers to all public documents in the world; nowadays, many public documents are digitised.
• A workplace search, which includes everything present in the workplace: diaries, computer files, e-mails, letters, and even the contents of a wastebasket.
• A digital data investigation: this is a frequently used tool in fraud investigations. Most communication and documents are digital nowadays. It is, therefore, very likely that evidence can be found in digital data. Each of these means of investigation must respect the principles of an internal investigation and comply with the GDPR principles .

A workplace investigation is conducted to verify alleged misconduct within a workplace.[1]  Once a complaint is made regarding wrongdoing, misconduct or unethical behaviour by an employee or group of employees within a workplace, an investigation is required to confirm the complaint and if it is confirmed, the body in charge of supervising the employees (usually the HR specialist, disciplinary committee or line managers) determine and implement necessary corrective or disciplinary actions.

Workplace investigations are normally commenced either through a complaint filed by other employees in the workplace or by HR or other representatives of management.

Under the Safe Spaces Act, employers are required to commence an investigation and decide on complaints regarding gender-based sexual harassment, within ten days of the complaint being brought to their attention. For other workplace misconduct, management is given wide discretion regarding the means and method by which the workplace investigation may be carried out.

There are no legal requirements in this respect – it depends on the internal policies or practices at a given working establishment. Based on our experience – an internal investigation usually commences with a preliminary assessment of a reported irregularity. If the preliminary assessment leads to a conclusion that a reported situation may be an irregularity, an investigation is launched by appointing a commission or team that conducts the investigation or selecting an investigator. Then, a plan of investigation is established. Depending on the circumstances, the investigation plan may involve a collection of documents or files, their analysis, and interviews with a victim, witnesses or a subject (although the procedure depends on the type of case, internal rules and practice). At the end of the process, the report is prepared by the commission or team with facts established during the process, recommendations, and other suggestions as to the investigated issue.

Having been informed of an alleged infraction committed by an employee, the employer must prepare a detailed written accusation and notify the employee.

Moreover, if the alleged infraction constitutes gross misconduct and the employer is considering dismissal, a formal statement of the employer’s intention to dismiss the employee should accompany the accusation. If this is not expressly done, the employer will be unable to dismiss the employee and may only apply one of the conservatory sanctions. A copy of these documents must be sent to the works council, if any, and, should the employee be a union member, to the respective trade union.

Notwithstanding this, if before preparing the accusation the employer needs to further investigate the facts and circumstances, it may open a preliminary investigation aimed at collecting all the facts and circumstances and conclude if there are grounds to bring an accusation against the employee.

The preliminary investigation must start within 30 days of the employer becoming aware of the facts, be diligently carried out (but with no maximum period laid down by law) and concluded within 30 days of the last investigatory act. Furthermore, the preliminary investigation will suspend the relevant statutory deadlines and statutes of limitations (ie, 60 days from the date of acknowledgment, by the employer or a supervisor with disciplinary power, of the facts to enforce disciplinary action against the employee and one year from when the facts occurred, regardless of the employer’s acknowledgment, unless the infraction also constitutes a criminal offence, in which case the longer statutes of limitation established in criminal law will apply).

A workplace investigation usually commences with the receipt of feedback, a complaint or a grievance, by named or anonymous persons, in respect of a work-related matter or event, or the conduct of an employee.

There are many different ways a workplace investigation concerning employee misconduct could commence. Below are some key examples from our experience:

• an employee reports allegations concerning another employee’s misconduct through an ethics hotline or other means (eg, email, phone call);
• an outsider such as a former employee or a vendor reports allegations concerning employee misconduct to a company officer;
• an internal audit reveals potential employee misconduct;
• media reports raise allegations of employee misconduct; and
• an external investigation begins (eg, by criminal authorities or administrative agencies) concerning alleged employee misconduct.

Given that Spain lacks legislation in this area (see question 1), each company commences workplace investigations following its internal guidelines, policies or practices, if any. In our experience, investigations begin with a formal decision to commence the enquiry, which is set out in writing for record-keeping purposes.

This decision will normally mention:

• the facts that will be investigated;
• the reasons to investigate the facts (eg, they could be a breach of company policies);
• how the investigation will be conducted; and
• the individuals who will conduct the enquiry.

Depending on the company, the decision to initiate the investigation may take the form of a decision by the competent employee or officer (ethics or compliance officer) or the minutes of the relevant corporate body (board of directors or compliance committee).

An investigation can be initiated in several ways. It is usually as a result of whistleblowing or a report on work environment deficiencies, or through other channels (eg, HR, the police, media coverage).

Internal investigations are usually initiated after reports about possible violations of the employer's code of conduct, applicable laws or regulations have been submitted by employees to their superiors, the human resources department or designated internal reporting systems such as hotlines (including whistleblowing hotlines).

For an internal investigation to be initiated, there must be a reasonable suspicion (grounds).[1] If no such grounds exist, the employer must ask the informant for further or more specific information. If no grounds for reasonable suspicion exists, the case must be closed. If grounds for reasonable suspicion exist, the appropriate investigative steps can be initiated by a formal investigation request from the company management.[2]

Usually, a complainant submitting a grievance to the company would be a trigger for proceeding with a workplace investigation. The LPA does not specify when a workplace investigation should commence but it is subject to the employer’s work rules and regulations, including the whistleblowing policy, as the investigation usually commences after an employee or a whistle-blower has filed a complaint to the employer. In some cases, there might be a whistleblower and the start of the workplace investigation would be subject to the whistleblowing policy and the employer’s discretion. Also, if a questionable transaction or activity is detected, fiscal audits may be the source that triggers a voluntary workplace investigation.

The need to initiate an internal investigation may arise from the receipt of information from various sources. Reporting is one of the most common sources and can be in different forms. In Turkey, while conventional methods such as reporting to a direct supervisor, human resources or executives is quite common, whistleblowers also use reporting mechanisms such as web-based forms, telephone hotlines or e-mail, if such mechanisms exist. It is critical to obtain as much information as possible from the complainants at this initial contact, to make a sound decision on whether or not to commence an investigation. There is no requirement to decide to start an investigation and it can be commenced through a corporate resolution (eg, ethics committee resolution or board resolution) of a decision-making body or a decision of the body or person who has such authority under the company policies. The investigation team who will conduct the process may also be approved by the company's decision-making body. It is also advisable to have a preliminary inquiry for the complaints, before commencing a fully-fledged investigation.

The trigger could come from several sources, such as a grievance from a current or former employee, a complaint from external sources, a whistleblowing disclosure, or as the result of internal governance measures.

In each case, the employer will need to decide if an investigation is warranted. It may be required by internal policies or regulatory requirements in some circumstances. Consideration must be given to whether an investigation is feasible; for example, is the evidence still in existence and accessible? Are key witnesses still employed or contactable?

If the employer concludes that an investigation is warranted, it should start without unreasonable delay. The first step would usually be to set terms of reference, which outline the purpose and remit of the investigation. These should be closely drafted and continually referred to, to avoid the investigation’s scope expanding when new points arise (as they almost always will). An investigator will also need to be appointed (see question 4).

A workplace investigation is often, although not always, prompted by a complaint of workplace misconduct, usually made directly by the employee who was harmed by the conduct, a third party who witnessed the conduct, or a manager or supervisor who was made aware of the issue and has reporting obligations as a result of his or her role in the organisation. 

It is best practice – and often a legal requirement depending on the applicable state law – for companies to clearly outline a complaint process in their policies and to provide employees who experience, have knowledge of, or witness incidents they believe to violate the company’s policies with one or more options for making a report. Although the specific complaint procedure may vary depending on the size of the organisation, the nature of the business and the type of complaint at issue, many companies provide for (or require) making a report through one of the following channels:

• a company-managed hotline or online equivalent;
•  human resources;
• an affected employee’s supervisor or manager; or
• a member of the legal or compliance department.    

The circumstances in which an employer commences a workplace investigation may vary, either through a whistleblower, through an internal system, email or phone call; complaints from suppliers, contractors, or customers; or accounts from observations and hearsay. Sometimes, it comes from anonymous complaints. However, it is common for an employer to verify whether the report or complaint is substantiated, partially substantiated, or unsubstantiated, which is sufficient to initiate and commence a workplace investigation.

It is an important consideration as to whether any of the employees involved in the investigation should be suspended, stood down or asked to undertake alternative duties for the period of the investigation. This decision will need to be made taking into consideration the nature of the complaint, any further damage to workplace relationships that could be caused by employees continuing to interact with each other, and potential work, health and safety issues.

It should not be automatic that the respondent is suspended as the employer will need to consider whether this is necessary in the circumstances. However, a period of suspension should be considered where:

• the allegations involve serious misconduct;
• there is a risk that the conduct will continue throughout the investigation;
• the respondent’s presence could exacerbate the situation; or
• the respondent’s presence could be disruptive to the investigation.

As an alternative to suspension, other options include working from home, performing amended duties or moving to a different workspace.

If an employee is suspended then they should ordinarily receive their full pay for this period. There are some exceptions to this, for example, if the employee is a casual employee or if a policy, employment contract or other industrial instrument allows the employee to be suspended without pay.

Generally, there is no minimum or maximum period a suspension should last, as this will depend on the length of the investigation.

Yes. An employer may always, and without legal restrictions, temporarily suspend an employee during an internal investigation, provided he or she continues to be paid.

However, suspending the employee does not release the employer from an obligation to terminate employment without notice. It must be clear to the employee that the suspension is a temporary measure in preparation for dismissal. A suspension does not entitle the employer to postpone the reasons for dismissal for any length of time. The longer the suspension lasts, the more likely it is that the employer intends to keep the employee.

In principle, you cannot unilaterally suspend an employee during a workplace investigation, as there is a risk of constructive dismissal (ie, wrongful termination of the employment contract by the unilateral modification of one of its essential elements). Consequences could include the payment of an indemnity in lieu of notice based on seniority as foreseen by the Employment Contracts Act, plus possible damages (three to 17 weeks remuneration if an unreasonable dismissal, plus alternative or additional damages based on real prejudice suffered). The parties can nevertheless agree on a suspension of the employment contract. In this scenario, the remuneration will still have to be paid. Furthermore, a suspension could be a sanction that follows the outcome of the investigation, but even then it will only be possible for a limited time (and a suspension without pay is usually only allowed by the courts for a maximum of three days). However, if the complaint is about sexual harassment, bullying or violence at work, the prevention advisor (see question 4) can recommend that the employer take certain actions, which in grave circumstances could lead to employee suspension. The suspended employee should continue to receive his pay if this occurs.

Yes, an employee can be suspended during or before a workplace investigation. However, suspending an employee is not a legal requirement in Brazil. It is also not standard business practice and entails legal risk, as detailed below.

While internal policies in line with a company’s global investigation approach may determine whether investigated employees are suspended during an investigation, the suspension of an accused employee is not recommended. The only exception is when the accused employee, upon becoming aware of the existence of the investigation, poses a clear and imminent risk of physical danger to other employees or interfering with the investigation.

The suspension of an employee during an investigation makes it difficult for the company to keep the investigation confidential, because the absence of the investigated employee will have to be explained to his or her colleagues and business contacts. As a result, the investigated employee may be exposed to the stigma of being associated with potential misconduct.

Even if the accusation is confirmed and the individual is terminated with cause, the employer cannot disclose the reason for the termination or that the contract was terminated for a cause or violation in the employee’s employment records. Also, if the employer shares such information with prospective employers they may be liable for damages.

Termination for cause on the grounds of dishonest conduct, if not upheld by the labour court, usually leads to liability for damages to the former employee due to the accusation and the stigma associated with it. 

Therefore, if the company decides to suspend the employee during the investigation and terminate his or her employment at the end of the investigation, the suspension will be associated with wrongdoing, and the individual will have grounds to claim damages for the association between the termination, the investigation and wrongdoing, which will likely be presumed by a labour court (damage in re ipsa).

On the other hand, if the accusation is deemed groundless, the connection between the employee and potential wrongdoing resulting from his or her suspension can be used as grounds for damages because of the resulting environment at the workplace or the development of mental health conditions such as depression or anxiety by the investigated employee due to the investigation and uncertainty about the negative effect of it on his or her reputation. 

Because suspension during an investigation is not a disciplinary measure, if the company decides to suspend, the employee’s salary cannot be affected. Also, the suspension period must be as short as possible, and can in no circumstance be longer than 30 days. If it exceeds 30 days, it would trigger termination for cause by the company, which increases the amount of statutory severance due to the employee.

When an employer is found to have engaged in misconduct of an employee, whether it has the right to suspend the employee from his/her duties and subject him/her to investigation, there are no explicit provisions in the existing labor law. Generally speaking, suspension of investigation arranged internally by an employer is within the scope of autonomous management of the employer. However, such suspension of investigation is subject to certain restrictions, and the basic rights and interests of the employee must be guaranteed. For example, the employer should continue to pay social insurance fund for the employee.

Suspension investigation shall generally be specified in advance in the labor contract or rules and regulations, and the duration of suspension investigation should be within the necessary and reasonable period. Indefinite suspension or the suspension of obviously long time will not be supported by arbitral tribunals and courts.

Generally annual leave may be taken preferentially by the employees during suspension period. The annual leave period shall be deemed as normal attendance, and the salary shall remain unchanged. Under the circumstance that the annual leave has been used up, in judicial practice, there are few cases supporting the claim that the employer can fully deduct the employee's salary during the suspension period. It is generally believed that the employer shall at least guarantee the basic living needs of the employee during the suspension period (i.e. the salary shall not be lower than the local minimum salary standard) or pay the employee as per the original salary standard. However, in judicial practice, some arbitrators and judges hold the view that an employer may use its discretion to reduce employees' salary if all of the following conditions are met:

• it is stipulated in its rules and regulations or a contract that it is entitled to suspend employees from their duties and reduce salaries if their fraudulent behaviour harms the employer's interests;
• the rules and regulations are stipulated in its rules and regulations, and are publicly announced and accepted by the employees; and
• there is evidence showing the corresponding fraudulent behaviour of the employees.

There is no legislation on temporary suspension in the event of a workplace investigation or similar. In some situations, the employer may relieve the employee from their working obligation with pay for a short period.

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.

Generally, under German employment law, an employee has a right to perform his[1] work and, therefore, suspending an employee would only be possible with the employee's consent. If an employer decided to suspend an employee without his consent, the employee could then claim his right to employment has been affected and seek a preliminary injunction before the competent labour court.

Unilaterally suspending an employee is, in principle, not permissible. Exceptions are made in cases where the employer has a legitimate interest. Typically, such legitimate interest exists after the employer has issued a notice of termination. During a workplace investigation, the employer may have a legitimate interest in suspending the employee, for example, if there is a risk that evidence may be destroyed, colleagues may be influenced, or the employee's presence may otherwise have a detrimental effect on the investigation or employer. Whether or not there is a legitimate interest must be assessed in each case. In practice, it is rare for employees to take legal action against a suspension.

In any event, during a suspension, the employee would be entitled to further payment of his salary without the employer receiving any services in return.

Internal labour regulations may allow for the suspension of an employee when there is reasonable suspicion that a disciplinary offence has been committed. Given that under Greek law employees have the right to receive wages and to be employed, suspension without a specific provision in the internal labour regulation may only be imposed in an extreme case where the offence and the risk of keeping the employee employed during an investigation is obvious.

Payment of remuneration during suspension should not be withheld, otherwise, the suspension could be considered a disciplinary penalty not provided in law and imposed without completion of the disciplinary procedure, thus illegally harming the employee.

In any case, suspension is one of the ultimate measures that may be taken, in contrast to, for example, a change of work position.

It may be appropriate to suspend an employee during a workplace investigation, for instance, where the investigation has revealed misconduct on his or her part (even on a preliminary basis), or his or her continued presence in the business would hinder the progress of the investigation. However, the employer will have to consider the relevant legislative provisions and the terms of the employment contract before making any decision on suspension.

Under section 11 of the EO, an employer may suspend an employee without pay pending a decision as to whether the employee should be summarily dismissed (up to 14 days) or pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings against the employee arising out of his or her employment (up to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings). If an employee is suspended as above, however, the employee may terminate his or her employment without notice or payment in lieu of notice.

It is more common for an employer to suspend an employee with pay during an investigation concerning his or her conduct rather than exercising its statutory right as mentioned above. This could avoid an unnecessary dispute with the employee concerned. Indeed, it is common for employers to include in employment contracts specific provisions to give themselves the right to suspend an employee with pay in certain circumstances. The provisions normally set out the circumstances in which the employer may exercise the right, the maximum period of suspension and other arrangements during the suspension period (eg, how the employee’s entitlements under the employment contract are to be dealt with).

Yes, an employee can be suspended or placed on administrative leave during an investigation if the circumstances warrant it. It is recommended to include the right to suspend in employee-facing policies. The employee should be informed about the suspension in writing, by issuing a suspension letter. In practice, a suspension is used when the charges against the employee are serious or if the employee’s presence at the workplace is likely to prejudice the investigation in any manner (eg, where there are concerns that evidence may be tampered with or witnesses pressurised). The requirement to suspend the employee should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and should not be exercised in every instance. If an employee is suspended, the investigation and inquiry should be completed as quickly as possible.

Further, concerning payment during the period of suspension, the law varies depending on the state and the category of employee. Generally, Indian law requires that individuals who are “workmen” be paid a subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, usually at the rate of 50% of their regular wages during the first 90 days of the suspension, and at varying rates thereafter. The exact rates at which subsistence allowance is paid will vary from state to state. In our experience, many companies choose to suspend employees with full salary even if there is an applicable subsistence allowance statute. This helps take some pressure off of the timeline within which the investigation and subsequent disciplinary inquiry can be completed.

Workplace suspensions in Ireland are a contentious issue and can result in an employer defending injunction proceedings in the High Court before an investigation has started.

In the case of Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Reilly, the judge stated: “The suspension of an employee, whether paid or unpaid, is an extremely serious measure which can cause irreparable damage to his or her reputation and standing."

In the 2023 case of O’Sullivan v HSE, the Supreme Court held that the Health Service Executive acted fairly and reasonably as an employer in suspending a consultant doctor after he had performed experiments on patients without their consent. This ruling overturned the Court of Appeal's earlier decision that previously found the suspension to be unlawful, as the consultant did not represent an immediate threat to the health of patients.

The Supreme Court considered whether the employer's decision to place the consultant on administrative leave met the test set out in the English case of Braganza v BP Shipping Limited & Anor. In that case, the court held that the decisionmaker's discretion would be limited "by concepts of good faith, honesty and genuineness and the need for absence of arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality."

In relying on the principles set out in the Braganza case, the Irish courts have reinforced the right of a decision-maker in an employment context to have discretionary power when implementing a suspension and that any decision to do so must be made honestly and in good faith. Employers should obtain legal advice when considering whether to suspend an employee in any circumstance.

In general, from an Italian employment law perspective, there is no specific legal rule governing the suspension of an employee during a workplace investigation.

However, it should be noted that:

• certain National Collective Bargaining Agreements (NCBAs) may provide, in particular circumstances, for the possibility of suspending (with pay) an employee (eg, when the employee is under criminal proceedings – as stated, for example, in the NCBA for executives of credit, financial and investment companies);
• according to well-established case law, the employer may suspend the employee from work (with pay) in the framework of a disciplinary procedure (which, according to Italian law, must be followed before applying any disciplinary sanction, including dismissal[1]), where the facts behind the procedure are sufficiently serious;

• certain case-law decisions have also stated that – even in the absence of a disciplinary procedure – the employer may suspend (with pay) the employee when it has very serious suspicions of an employee’s unlawful conduct, and for the time that is strictly necessary to ascertain his or her liability.

The above may be done by the employer, for instance, if keeping the employee in service may cause a risk of tampering with evidence or a risk of damage to the physical safety of other employees or company property.

Normally, in the above-mentioned circumstances, the suspension is with pay and with job security.

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.

Suspension is usually a disciplinary measure. The employer may, for example, suspend an employee if it is necessary that the employee doesn't work during the investigation into their actions or omissions. Suspension has no specific legal basis in Dutch law, but several conditions can be derived from case law or collective labour agreements.

Overriding interest

The measure may only be taken if the employee's presence at work would cause considerable harm to the employer's business or if, due to other compelling reasons that do not outweigh the employee's interests, the employer cannot reasonably be expected to tolerate the employee's continued presence at work. If there is a well-founded fear that the employee will (among other things) frustrate the investigation into their actions, the employer may proceed to suspend the employee.

Procedural rules

The principle of acting in line with good employment practice (section 7:611 DCC) plays an essential role in the question of the admissibility of the suspension. The principle of due care leads, among other things, to a duty of investigation for the employer and means the employer must enable the employee to respond adequately to any accusations.

Contractual arrangements

Many collective agreements or staff handbooks contain regulations on suspension and deactivation. The regulation may concern the grounds, the duration or the procedure to be followed. The latter includes rules on hearing both sides of the argument, the right to assistance, how the decision must be communicated to the person concerned, and the possibility of “internal appeal” and rehabilitation. Under good employment practice, the employer must proceed swiftly with the investigation and allow the employee to respond to the results. If the employee hinders the investigation in any way, it can be a reason to continue the suspension during the investigation.

Pay

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that suspension is a cause for non-performance of work that must reasonably be borne by the employer according to section 7:628 DCC. The employee has a right to be paid in nearly all circumstances, with limited exceptions (eg, if the employee is in detention and the employer suspended the employee in response to that).

Duration

The duration of the suspension during a workplace investigation is not legally pre-determined. However, the suspension of an employee must be a temporary measure. The relevant collective agreement often stipulates how long the suspension may last.

Yes, an employee can be suspended during an investigation to allow the employer to investigate the allegations against the employee unhindered and without undue interference by that employee. A suspension under the law merely prevents the employee from discharging the ordinary functions of his or her role without any deprivation of his rights during the period of the suspension. Thus, unless there is an express provision in the contract of employment or employee’s handbook stating that the employee can be suspended with or without half pay, the employee would be entitled to a full salary.

Further, the duration for which the employee may be suspended should be as contained in the employee’s contract, employee’s handbook, or letter of suspension.

In the recent case of GLOBE MOTORS HOLDINGS NIGERIA LIMITED v. AKINYEMI ADEGOKE OYEWOLE (2022), the court held, “Since suspension is not a termination of the employment contract nor a dismissal of the employee, the implication is that the employee is still in continuous employment of the employer until he is recalled or formally terminated or dismissed. Pending his recall or dismissal, a suspended employee is entitled to his wages or salary during the period of suspension, unless the terms of the contract of employment or the letter of suspension itself is specific that the suspended employer will not be paid salaries during the period of suspension”.

A preventive suspension pending investigation is allowed under the law, provided that the continued employment of the subject of the investigation poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or other employees. Additionally, the period of preventive suspension pending investigation should not last longer than 30 days. However, should the employer wish to extend this period, the employer must pay the employee’s wages and other benefits. The employee is under no obligation to reimburse the amount paid to them during the extension if the employer should, later on, decide to dismiss the employee after the completion of the process.

In practice, the notice of preventive suspension is issued simultaneously with the first notice or the notice to explain after the employer has conducted its fact-finding investigation and has reason to believe that the employee must be held accountable for his or her actions.

Since placing an employee under preventive suspension requires the existence of a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or other employees, some employers opt to place the employee or employees involved on agreed paid leave. This will allow the employer to conduct an unhampered workplace investigation while the investigated employee is still able to receive his or her full salary during this period. The exact period of paid leave may be agreed upon by the employer and the employee, but ideally it should not last for more than thirty days.

Polish law does not provide for the suspension of an employee. Instead, an employer may agree with an employee that he or she will be released from the obligation to perform work during a relevant period of investigation (with the right to remuneration). The employer may not do this unilaterally, unless the employee is in a notice period. As an alternative, which is more common in practice, the employer may force the employee to use outstanding holiday leave (subject to limitations provided by law) or the parties may mutually agree on the use of holiday leave or unpaid leave (if the employee has already used his or her holiday entitlement in full).

After the employee is notified of the accusation, the employer may decide on a preventive suspension of the employee if the employee’s presence on company premises is deemed problematic. In this case, the employee’s salary will continue to be paid.

As per article 330(5) of the Portuguese Labour Code, a preventive suspension may also be determined during the 30 days before the accusation is made, provided that the employer, in writing, justifies why is necessary (eg, for interfering with the inquiry) and why the accusation cannot be served at that moment.

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).

The company may place an employee who is subject to a workplace investigation under administrative leave if this seems necessary or appropriate to ensure the integrity of the workplace investigation. While administrative leave can take different forms, one way is to issue a “standby order” to the relevant employee, instructing him or her not to come into work and prohibiting contact with other employees or customers while the workplace investigation is ongoing.

Administrative leave is not a disciplinary action, but rather an exercise of the company’s authority to take personnel management measures. This authority is generally subject to a “reasonableness” test, with the Korean courts balancing the employer’s business necessity in placing the employee on administrative leave with the inconvenience caused to the employee. In conducting the balancing test, the Korean courts have considered whether the employee receives pay during the leave and the duration of the leave, among other things. In general, if the duration of the leave is not excessive and is with full pay and benefits, the employer’s management prerogative is likely to be recognised.

The company doesn't need to obtain the employee’s consent but, in practice, a company should consider getting the employee’s acknowledgement that they have received the administrative leave notice.

In addition to Korean labour law, other factors such as the company’s rules of employment or a collective bargaining agreement (if any) may affect the company’s ability to place the employee on administrative leave, by providing for prescribed procedures for placing an employee on administrative leave or requiring the company to obtain the union’s consent if a union leader or executive is involved.

Yes, a company may suspend an employee if it has valid grounds to believe that keeping an employee under investigation in his or her position during the enquiry could obstruct the investigation or become an obstacle to it (for example, the employee could try to conceal facts or influence other employees within the organisation).

The decision to suspend the employee must be communicated in writing. This will usually take the form of a suspension letter that explains the reasons that have led to the suspension, its expected duration and that the suspension is not a disciplinary measure. Since the suspension is not a disciplinary measure, the employee would be entitled to continue collecting his or her standard remuneration during the suspension.

In Spain, employees have the right to be effectively occupied during their employment. Therefore, the duration of the suspension should be limited in time to what is strictly necessary to avoid what led to the suspension in the first place.

In general, an employee in the private sector may be temporarily suspended for a short period with pay and other benefits during a workplace investigation. The room for suspension without pay is, by contrast, very limited. An applicable collective bargaining agreement may impose additional restrictions on the right to temporary suspend an employee. The suspension should be limited in time and only be in force during the investigation, but can be repeated for (multiple) additional short periods if necessary to conclude the investigation. An assessment needs to be made on a case-by-case basis as suspension in some cases may be considered unlawful. If not executed with sufficient consideration of the employee’s interests, it may be considered a constructive dismissal or a breach of the employer’s work environment obligations. If the employee is unionised, trade unions sometimes request that the employer initiates consultations as part of a decision to suspend an employee.

In the public sector, the right to suspension is limited. There are also special regulations regarding the suspension of certain employees, for example, employees who are employed as permanent judges.

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.

While an employee is being investigated by the employer, the LPA permits the employer to suspend that employee from work for the duration of the investigation, provided that the suspension can only be made when permitted by the work rules or an agreement related to the conditions of employment. Also, a suspension order must be made in writing and specify the offence and period of the suspension, which may not exceed seven days. Note that the employer must give a written suspension order in advance to the employee before the work suspension.

As aforementioned, the LPA only permits the employer to suspend the employee under investigation from work only for seven days. During the interim period of the suspension, the employer must pay the employee at the rate indicated in the work rules or the agreement reached between the employer and the employee, which must not be less than half of the employee's wages for a working day before his or her suspension. If the employer determines that the employee subject to investigation is not guilty following the outcome, the employer must compensate the employee for outstanding wages from the date of suspension with 15% interest per annum.

In some complicated cases, a workplace investigation does not conclude within seven days, and, in which case the employer should consult with a legal advisor.

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.

In the UK, suspension is not seen as a neutral act, so should not be a default approach at the start of an investigation. It may be appropriate if, for example, there is a risk to the health and safety of the employee in question (or any other employee), a risk that their continued presence in the business could prejudice the investigation, or risk of continued wrongdoing.

The employer should always check the individual’s employment contract to see if it contains the power to suspend. Suspension should generally always be with pay to avoid any breach of contract. It should also be regularly reviewed and kept to a minimum duration.

Employers should not suspend employees under investigation as a knee-jerk reaction to bare allegations. There must be at least some evidence to support the need for suspension (which may require a preliminary investigation before deciding to suspend). Alternatives to suspension should always be considered, such as a temporary transfer to a different area of work, if the employee agrees or it is otherwise permitted by their contract.

If authorities such as regulators or prosecutorial agencies are involved in the investigation, they may have an opinion about an employee’s suspension, particularly if they wish to conduct interviews. Consider whether or not to involve the authorities in the suspension discussions at an early stage.

ACAS have produced a guide to suspension during investigations (last updated Sept 2022) which gives further guidance on these issues.

Yes. An employer may suspend the subject of an internal investigation with full pay pending the outcome of an investigation. However, this measure should be used sparingly, for example in cases where an employee has been accused of gross misconduct or where it is the only means of separating the alleged victim of harassment from the accused to prevent continued harassment. As an alternative means of separating the victim from the accused, an employer can consider interim measures such as a schedule change, transfer or leave of absence for the alleged victim with his or her consent (employers should take care not to take any action that could be perceived as retaliatory against the complainant – even if well-intentioned – including involuntarily transferring him or her or forcing a leave of absence).

Where an employer does determine that suspending the subject of an investigation is warranted while the company carries out its investigation, it should provide him or her with a written statement briefly outlining the reason for the suspension and the estimated date the employee will be advised of the investigation outcome and his or her final employment status.

Article 128 of the 2019 Labor Code explicitly states that an employer has the right to temporarily suspend an employee who is being investigated for committing an alleged act of misconduct in breach of the labour rules, if the following conditions are met:

• the misconduct committed is complex in nature, and any further work carried out by the employee may jeopardise the ongoing investigation. The law does not clearly define “complex nature”; it may be open to various interpretations by the employer. In practice and from our experience, allegations of sexual harassment may be considered complex misconduct and, therefore, can be a ground for suspension;
• the employer has consulted with (and effectively obtained the approval of) the grassroots-level representative organisation of the employee. No formal process is stipulated under the law for such consultation with this organisation. From our experience, the consultation can be in the form of a meeting between the management of the employer and the executive committee of the organisation. However, the organisation should require the employee to acknowledge their consent in writing by signing the meeting minutes;
• the period of suspension cannot exceed 15 days or 90 days in “special circumstances”. The law does not define what falls under “special circumstances”. In our view, this will be subject to the interpretation and discretion of the employer after consulting with the grassroots-level representative organisation of the employee; and
• the employee must be paid 50% of his or her wage that would be due during the period of the temporary suspension in advance. When the temporary suspension ends, if no disciplinary measure is imposed on the employee, the employer must pay the full wage for the period of the suspension by paying the remaining 50%.

The investigator should prepare a written report setting out whether the allegations are substantiated, unsubstantiated or cannot be determined due to insufficient evidence. This report should be used for internal purposes only. Accordingly, the report should not be shared with the complainant, respondent or witnesses unless required by law, the employer’s policies or another industrial instrument. It is particularly important not to share the investigation report should the employer wish to maintain privilege in respect of the report.

The employer should determine the intended recipients and format of the report in advance. In many cases, it may be advisable to publish only the results of the investigation to protect the privacy and reputation of the individuals concerned, as this may help to minimise any potential negative impact on them.

However, under certain circumstances or due to legal requirements, full disclosure of the investigation report may be required, especially if transparency and disclosure are necessary to maintain public or investor confidence.

It is recommended to limit the communication to the findings and details of the report that are necessary for the employee to fully understand the outcome. This is especially true if the investigation is bound by a duty of confidentiality (eg, under the whistleblowing rules), as the employee should not be allowed access to the full report.

There is no legal requirement or recommendation for the company to share the full or partial report or findings. It is also not a recommended measure. Therefore, unless the internal rules determine that the company must do it, any answer to queries should be limited to the fact that the investigation was concluded, and the company took the appropriate action.

For the employee: As mentioned in our response to question 22, the relevant laws and regulations in the PRC do not impose any obligation on an employer to share investigation report (including the findings) with its employee, unless otherwise expressly provided in its internal rules and regulations that the employer may share with its employee any investigation report or findings that do not involve trade secrets or another person's privacy or personal information. Therefore, the employer has the discretion to decide whether and to what extent to share the investigation report based on its business management needs.

For the police/regulatory authorities: In general, an employer shall provide a complete report according to the law as required by the authority handling the case. It is recommended that the employer should conduct a detailed review of the investigation authority and the information contained in the evidence collection documents issued by the authority, and communicate with the authority to specify the scope of assistance and evidentiary materials to be provided. Although the employer cannot refuse to provide relevant evidentiary materials to the investigation authority on the grounds that such evidentiary materials involve trade secret or personal privacy, it still needs to carefully assess the relevance of the evidentiary materials to the facts of the case and timely communicate with the authority to confirm and narrow the scope of providing evidence as much as possible. If necessary, the employer can consult professional lawyers to provide professional opinions. In addition, we suggest that the employer may also try to require the investigation officer to sign a confidentiality letter, and file the investigation materials involving trade secret or personal privacy, the reasons thereof, etc., for the purpose of reducing legal risks faced by the employer.

The employee under investigation may only be informed of the conclusions.

There is no obligation to share the investigation report. The findings, or a summary of them without revealing any confidential information, may be disclosed, but it is the employer’s responsibility to keep the identity of every person interviewed confidential.

Generally, general data protection regulations apply. This means that, after the investigation, the information described in question 22 must only be provided if the employee requests it.

Whether, in the context of such a request, the full report needs to be shared is disputed in Germany. Some legal scholars and labour courts argue that a summary of the content of the report is sufficient. Others state that the employee should be presented with the full report, whereby passages that do not concern him should be redacted. In practice, it is highly uncommon to share the full report with the employee.

There is no explicit legal provision stating the whole report must be communicated with the employee under investigation. The legal framework (L.4990/2022 and L.4808/2021) is governed by strict confidentiality obligations and obligations to protect the complainant’s data. From a data protection regulation perspective, it could be argued that the right of the person under investigation to know the identity of the complainant, witnesses or sources of information should be limited to protect the rights of such persons.

However, if the outcome of the investigation leads to the imposition of disciplinary measures, the right of the employee under investigation to request the whole investigation report, to aid in their defence is enhanced. Moreover, if a complaint is made in bad faith or is unfounded, it may be supported that the employee under investigation is entitled to receive full documentation so he or she can seek adequate legal protection or file an action before the courts.

The employer is generally not obliged to share the investigation report or the findings with the employee under Hong Kong law, absent any express obligations under the employment contract.

However, according to the PDPO, the content of the investigation report or meeting minutes related to the employee (including any findings and opinions expressed in such documents) are likely to constitute the personal data of the employee under investigation. In that case, the employee may have a right under the PDPO to obtain a copy of such documents by making a statutory data access request after the workplace investigation is completed. The employer’s obligation to comply with such request is subject to certain exemptions under Part 8 of the PDPO, which include (among others) an exemption on the provision of personal data held for the prevention, preclusion or remedying of unlawful or seriously improper conduct, and the disclosure of which would be likely to prejudice the said purpose or directly or indirectly identify the person who is the source of the data.[1] Therefore, where there is a parallel criminal proceeding or investigation that has not been concluded, the employer may reject an employee’s data access request on the basis that the requested disclosure may prejudice the prevention and remedy of the unlawful conduct. Further, any information protected by legal privilege is also exempt from disclosure under Part 8 of the PDPO.[2]

If the requested documents also contain the personal data of any other third parties (such as other co-workers of the employee who have also participated in the investigation), the employer should always redact or erase such data before providing the requested documents to the employee under investigation, unless the relevant third parties have consented to the disclosure of the data.

Please see question 22.

The investigation report should be shared in full, unless there is some specific reason for not doing so. One example is where there is a possibility of a criminal investigation; in that instance, it may be appropriate not to share the full report. Occasionally, there may be several respondents involved in the complaint, and each respondent may only be entitled to the report that relates to them.

There is no general obligation of the employee to share an investigation report with the employee: only if and when disciplinary action is brought against the employee, the latter must be informed precisely of the allegations (but, once again, without being entitled to review the investigation report). In court, employees may ask for an exhibition of documents, including the investigation report, if not already filed by the employer, to use in its defence (but such request is not necessarily automatically granted by the court, as certain requirements must be met.

There is no legal obligation to share reports of findings. Therefore, the company may share only the summary or the entire report at its discretion.

Employers are typically not required to share the investigation report with implicated persons or other employees involved in an investigation. Depending on the nature and subject of the investigation, the principle of due care may require an employer to share (draft) investigative findings before concluding on such findings.

The employer needs to balance the interests of the employee investigated, and the interests of other persons involved in the investigation such as the complainant and witnesses. Thus, the employer may either share the findings of the investigation or the full investigation report, provided that the identities of all other persons involved in the investigation are kept confidential.

The employer is not compelled to share its investigation report with the employee. However, it would be ideal for the company to keep in its records a comprehensive report that details the findings of the investigation. This would be useful during the administrative disciplinary process when the employee requests to be informed of the substantive grounds for his or her eventual termination.

It does not need to be shared with the employees at all. It may be shared only to the extent such a disclosure will not violate any law, including personal data protection law or personal rights.

If the employee is accused by the employer, they will be entitled to consult the entire investigation report and not just the findings, as well as the witnesses' depositions, which should be in writing, and any other sources of information that were used by the employer

Even though the law is silent in this respect, courts have ruled that if this is not complied with, the employee’s right of defence would be deemed to be disrespected.

It would suffice for a summary of the investigation’s findings to be shared with the complainant and the respondent employees.

As discussed in question 22, when taking disciplinary action against an employee based on the outcome of an investigation, the company would need to disclose sufficient detail on the employee’s wrongdoing. However, this does not mean that the full investigation report would need to be shared with the employee to be disciplined. Key details of the investigation findings that apply to the relevant employee due to be disciplined should be shared, and not other findings concerning other persons.

There is also no requirement under Korean law for a company to disclose the investigation report or investigation findings to the whistleblower. If the company discloses the personal identity of the target employees, such disclosure could constitute a violation of the PIPA , libel or defamation under the Criminal Code. If the whistleblower strongly requests that the company share the investigation report or the findings, the company may consider providing a summary of the key findings concerning the allegations that the whistleblower raised, without disclosing personal information.

Since workplace investigations are not regulated in Spain, there are no clear rules as to the amount of information on the investigation that would need to be shared with an employee if the company was compelled to disclose the enquiry (see questions 11 and 22). A good rule of thumb is that an employee should have access to all the information that is relevant to be in a position to oppose the alleged breaches.

Moreover, if the disciplinary measures taken were challenged before a Labour Court – employees in Spain tend to challenge these types of measures – the plaintiff could request the Labour Court to order the company to produce all of the investigation details, including the findings and the full investigation report.

Finally, companies will normally have an interest in producing a report that clearly states the moment in which the fact-finding exercise was concluded and the company had a full picture of the facts. This is because the statute of limitations to sanction employment breaches, which ranges from 10 to 60 days depending on the seriousness of the misconduct, starts to count when the company has a comprehensive view of the events (which would coincide with the date the investigation report was issued).

There is no obligation to share the investigation report, neither in full nor key findings, with the involved parties. An assessment needs to be made in each case of what is appropriate to share and with whom.

When sharing an investigation report, certain data protection considerations must be made. A purpose and legal basis for the sharing must be established and, in principle, documented.

If the Swedish Whistleblowing Act applies, the duty of confidentiality and the restrictions on access to and disclosure of personal data must be considered (see question 10).

In principle, there is no obligation to disclose the final investigation report. Disclosure obligations may arise based on data protection law vis-à-vis the persons concerned (eg, the accused). Likewise, there is no obligation to disclose other documents, such as the records of interviews. The employee should be fully informed of the final investigation report, if necessary, with certain redactions (see question 22). The right of the employee concerned to information is comprehensive (ie, all investigation files must be disclosed to him).[1] Regarding publication to other bodies outside of criminal proceedings, the employer is bound by its duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations) and must protect the employee as far as is possible and reasonable.[2]

It depends on with whom the investigation report should be shared. If there is a court case or criminal case to be further investigated by police, the investigation report should be shared in full as this would be used as documentary evidence to make a case stronger. On the contrary, if the investigation report is requested by the employee under investigation, employers are entitled to use their discretion as to what information to share.

There is no legal requirement for the disclosure of the investigation report in full. If the investigation report needs to be submitted to the court, public institutions or other third parties, measures may need to be taken to protect confidentiality or to comply with the confidentiality requests of the persons participating in the investigation.

The answer to this depends on whether or not privilege attaches to the report, as well as whether criminal proceedings are contemplated – if so, there may be a danger of waiver of privilege, or witness evidence being contaminated if they have an opportunity to read each other’s evidence as part of the report. This could inhibit the fairness of any subsequent criminal trial.

Only the findings should be shared with the complainant and the subject of the complaint.

There is no obligation to share the investigation report or the findings unless the employer and employee agree to do so.

However, under Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on personal data protection, the contents of the investigation report or findings related to the employee are likely to constitute the personal data of the employee under investigation. In that case, the employee may have a right under the said Decree to obtain copies of such documents by making a statutory data access request after the workplace investigation is completed. Where the employer is required to provide such documents to the employee under Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP but the requested documents also contain the personal data of any other third parties (such as the employee’s co-workers who participated in the interview during the investigation), the employer should first redact or erase such data before providing the requested documents, unless the relevant third parties have consented to the disclosure of their personal data.