Workplace Investigations

Once the decision to undertake a workplace investigation has been made, it is important to decide who is the most appropriate person to conduct the investigation. For the investigation process to run smoothly a single lead investigator should be selected, although they may work with a larger team. The lead investigator and investigation team can be internally or externally appointed.

In deciding whether to appoint an external investigator an employer should consider:

• the nature of the allegations;
• the seniority of the respondent;
• whether a fair investigation can be conducted internally without any actual or perceived bias;
• whether there is a dedicated HR department with someone who has the required capability, skills and experience to conduct the investigation; and
• whether the employer wants the investigation to be covered by legal professional privilege.

If the employer decides to investigate the matter internally without appointing a third party, then the investigator does not need to have any specific qualifications. However, it is prudent to confirm that the investigator has the time and skills to conduct the investigation and that they can be objective.   

There are no prescribed minimum standards for this procedure. The responsibility for conducting these investigations lies with the employers. Internal compliance or legal teams are often entrusted with this task, as they are familiar with internal protocols. In practice, these investigations are often overseen by an internal team, occasionally with the assistance of law firms or auditing firms. Those involved in the investigation must remain impartial. Potentially biased persons, such as those under investigation and their close associates, should be excluded from participation.

In general, there are no legal minimum qualifications, the employer can delegate the investigation task to anyone. Of course, it is strongly recommended to appoint someone who is not involved in the case and who can lead the investigation objectively with the necessary authority to take investigative measures.

However, in the specific case of an official complaint due to sexual harassment, violence or bullying at work, the investigation will be conducted by the prevention advisor for psychosocial aspects. Next, if the investigation is based on an internal whistleblowing report, there will have to be an independent reporting manager responsible for receiving the report, giving feedback to the whistleblower and ensuring a decent follow-up to the report. Logically, the reporting manager will lead the investigation in this case, but he can be assisted by other persons or a team who are bound by a duty of confidentiality.

There is no statutory rule, and therefore the investigator can be chosen by the company.

In sensitive matters, it is recommended that attorneys undertake the investigation due to legal privilege. Engaging external lawyers increases the confidence of witnesses and parties in the independence and lack of bias of the investigation process, especially when the allegations involve senior employees.

Additionally, attorneys are trained to collect information based on legal thresholds that apply to the allegations, allowing the decision-makers to understand the events as they would be posed before a labour judge or a prosecutor, and enabling them to clearly assess the legal risk involved in the situation.

In some laws and regulations for specific industries, enterprises or personnel, there are certain requirements for the qualifications of investigators. For example, according to the Interim Measures for Investigating and Dealing with Disciplinary Violations of Professional Personnel by Medical Institutions, the personnel conducting an investigation and evidence collection shall not be less than two. If the investigator is a close relative of the investigated person, or a tip-off person or a key witness of the issue to be investigated, the investigator shall withdraw from the investigation.

However, at present, there are no unified and detailed national rules and regulations on the qualification of the investigators and organizations. In practice, the selection of the personnel and organizations responsible for internal investigation is usually based on the relevant provisions in the internal rules and regulations of the employer. The personnel conducting internal investigation are usually internal functional departments of the employer and are independent to some extent, including the personnel department, legal department, compliance department or risk control department. For significant or complex issues or senior management investigations, in order to ensure professionalism, accuracy and compliance, external law firms, consultants and accounting firms are also frequently hired to conduct investigations.

The employer must conduct the investigation, but the actual work can be done either by the employer's personnel or by an external investigator, for example, a law firm. Either way, there are no formal criteria for the persons executing the investigation; however, impartiality is required from the person conducting the investigation

In determining who is to conduct a workplace investigation, the main objective is to ensure that the team is independent or at least that it is perceived as being independent. The key people in the investigation team can be identified in a pre-established procedure. It is good practice to give decision-makers the possibility to set up, on a case-by-case basis, the team most appropriate to the situation.

It is up to the company to decide who should carry out the workplace investigation and individual investigative steps. If their staff is used, the question arises of which person or department (compliance, legal, internal audit, HR or management) should take the lead. The answer to this question may depend on various factors such as the number of employees affected by the workplace investigation and the nature of the alleged misconduct. In any event, due to various employment law and data protection issues, the HR department and the legal department should be involved.

Further, it may make sense to bring in external advisors to lead the investigation together with an internal investigation team of the company. The engagement of an external investigation team can also be advantageous concerning the two-week exclusion period for termination for cause. This period does not start to run as long as the external advisors are investigating, but only when the persons authorised to terminate employment receive the investigation report.

As far as the persons in charge of an internal investigation are concerned, L. 4990/2022 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law provides for certain conditions that should be met when exercising their duties (ie, being impartial and abstaining when there is a conflict of interest), which also apply as general principles in all disciplinary procedures. Whistleblowing legislation stipulates that persons appointed to receive and investigate a whistleblowing procedure should meet certain conditions, including no penal proceedings against them, no disciplinary proceedings or convictions for specific offences, and no workplace suspensions.

Official disciplinary procedures are conducted by the competent bodies as described in the respective internal labour regulations.

Although not specifically regulated, support from external advisors (eg, lawyers) is allowed.

There are no statutory or regulatory requirements regarding the choice of investigator in workplace investigations. However, it is good practice to have the investigation conducted by persons who have been trained to do so as investigations may involve intricate issues. It is also important that the investigators are perceived to be impartial and fair. For that reason, the investigators should be individuals who are not involved in the matter under investigation.

Complex cases or cases that involve a senior employee may require someone more senior within the company to lead and oversee the conduct of the investigation. This also applies where it is foreseeable that the investigation may lead to disciplinary action, summary dismissal of the employee or a report to an authority.

Engagement of external parties or professional advisors may be necessary if the conduct under investigation is serious or widespread and may lead to regulatory consequences, or if the employer does not have the requisite expertise to handle the investigation. Lawyers (whether in-house counsel or external lawyers) may be the best fit to conduct a workplace investigation to ensure that legal professional privilege attaches to documents and communications created during the investigation (please see question 14).

Complaints pertaining to sexual harassment can only be investigated by the IC constituted under the SH Act.

For other kinds of misconduct, employers usually constitute a fact-finding investigation team with members who are independent and unbiased. The fact-finding team can be appointed internally, or the employer could also engage an external agency, depending upon the gravity and sensitivity of the matter, the nature of the issues being investigated or a desire to try and maintain legal privilege regarding the findings of the investigation.

An investigator does not have to hold any minimum qualifications. More often than not it is an employee's manager or HR manager who is carrying out the investigation. Crucially, the person carrying out the investigation must not be involved in the complaint, as an argument of bias could be made before the investigation begins. The investigator should also be of suitable seniority to the respondent and have the necessary skills and experience to carry out an investigation. If a recommendation by the investigator is made to progress the matter to a disciplinary process, which may in turn be the subject of the appeal, there should be adequate, neutral personnel within the organisation to deal with each stage. Again if the investigator and the disciplinary decisionmaker are the same person, an argument of bias will be made that will usually lead to a breach of fair procedures and any decision being unsustainable. Frequently, employers outsource the investigation to an external third party as there may simply not be adequate personnel within the organisation to carry out the process. Employers should ensure that within their policies the right to appoint an internal or external investigator is reserved.

In general, from an employment law perspective, there is no specific legal rule governing the minimum qualifications of who should conduct a workplace investigation. Generally speaking, a workplace investigation is carried out by the internal audit function, when there is one (generally in large companies), or by the HR or legal departments.

Outside the workplace, the employer may carry out investigations on the employee – normally without the latter knowing – through a private investigator. This investigation should be carried out to verify that the employee does not engage in conduct contrary to the company’s interests (eg, unlawful competition, disclosure of confidential information, criminal breaches). In such cases, the private investigator must comply with specific rules, mainly found in Italian Royal Decree No. 773 of 1931, according to which the investigator must, among other things: hold a licence issued by the competent authority; and keep a register of the activities conducted daily.

In addition, if there is a suspicion that a crime has been committed, the company may appoint a criminal law lawyer to conduct their own defensive criminal law investigation, as provided by article 391bis and the Italian Criminal Procedure Code.

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

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

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

Workplace investigations, if they are to be of value, must be conducted by an expert, professional and independent party. To safeguard the independence of the investigation, it is crucial that neither the contractor nor any other third party can influence how the investigation is to be conducted or how the outcome should be reported. The investigation must be conducted according to the protocol drawn up at the start and the investigator must not be involved in the follow-up to the outcome.

There is an ongoing discussion of whether lawyers can conduct an objective and independent investigation, due to the bias inherent to their profession. On the other hand, investigation bureaus or committees are also not necessarily independent, as they are not regulated and not subject to disciplinary law.

Typically, the legal department, the chief compliance officer, the HR manager, the audit committee or any other committee as may be set up by the company may conduct a workplace investigation. However, in other instances, the company may engage the services of independent external personnel to assist with conducting an internal investigation.

The minimum qualification or criteria of the person conducting the investigation should be as contained in the relevant company policies. Criteria may include independence, objectivity and impartiality.

Under the Safe Spaces Act, an employer should create an independent internal mechanism or a committee on decorum and investigation to investigate and address complaints of gender-based sexual harassment, which should:

• adequately represent the management, the employees from the supervisory rank, the rank-and-file employees, and the union, if any;
• designate a woman as its head and no less than half of its members should be women;
• be composed of members who are impartial and not connected or related to the alleged perpetrator;
• investigate and decide on the complaints within 10 days or less upon receipt thereof;
• observe due process;
• protect the complainant from retaliation; and
• guarantee confidentiality to the greatest extent possible.

For other types of offences, it is the prerogative of management as to who will conduct the investigation and how it will be conducted, provided the proceedings remain impartial.

There are no legal requirements in this regard but it is good practice if the team of investigators or individuals who deal with the case consists of:

• a person who has specific knowledge in a given field (concerning the violation);
• a member of the HR team; and
• a lawyer (it is recommended to engage an independent, external lawyer who can maintain the objectivity of the investigation, especially in complex matters or where a conflict of interest arises or may arise).

It is crucial that the investigators are independent (and they must be allowed to act independently).

Also, certain personal features are useful (eg, the ability to objectively assess a situation, empathy, and managing skills).

According to article 356(1) of the Portuguese Labour Code, the employer can appoint an instructor, who shall be responsible for the probationary proceedings. Usually, workplace investigations are conducted by external advisors (eg, lawyers), appointed by the employer.

However, regarding disciplinary powers, there is a legal limitation in article 98 of the Portuguese Labour Code. As such, only the employer (or the immediate superior of the concerned employee, if the employer has delegated its powers, as per article 329(4) of the Portuguese Labour Code) has disciplinary powers.

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

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

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

While there are no laws that set minimum qualifications for who should conduct a workplace investigation, companies often engage external legal counsel to ensure the investigation is conducted in an unbiased and professional manner. If the company itself undertakes the workplace investigation, the company should take precautions such as ensuring that the person conducting the investigation is not biased and not involved in the alleged wrongdoing. If the person conducting the investigation cannot converse in the native language of the employee under investigation, the company may consider arranging for an interpreter when conducting interviews, to minimise the risk of misunderstanding.

As set out in question 1, workplace investigations must be proportional and companies must use the least intrusive means to affect employees’ rights. This translates into the following principles on who conducts the investigation:

• the enquiry must involve a minimal number of employees;
• only those employees with competencies on the investigated matters should be involved (normally human resources or compliance); and
• employees conducting the investigation must be qualified and have the power and seniority to do so proficiently (although a formal qualification is not required).

If the workplace investigation falls under the Swedish Whistleblowing Act, the investigation has to be conducted by independent and autonomous persons or entities designated under the Swedish Whistleblowing Act as competent to investigate reports.

If the workplace investigation is not governed by the Swedish Whistleblowing Act, there are no minimum qualification requirements. When appointing an investigator, one should consider who would be most suitable in the given situation. For example, it may in some situations be more suitable to have an external investigator to ensure impartiality.

The examinations can be carried out internally by designated internal employees, by external specialists, or by a combination thereof. The addition of external advisors is particularly recommended if the allegations are against an employee of a high hierarchical level[1], if the allegations concerned are quite substantive and, in any case, where an increased degree of independence is sought.

The employer should conduct a workplace investigation on its own; however, an outside firm experienced in interviewing witnesses and assessing the credibility of evidence may also be appointed to assist with the workplace investigation.

There is no minimum qualification or criteria provided under Thai laws. It is worth noting that anyone who has been accused of misconduct or potentially has a conflict of interest should be excluded from any role in the investigation. This is to avoid a challenge from the subject employee that the investigation was not conducted fairly.

There is no compulsory requirement or qualification arising from the law as to the selection of the investigation team. The number and the profile of the investigation team need to be decided according to the characteristics of the case, whereas the head of the investigation team needs to be a competent and experienced investigator. A conflict of interest review is required to be conducted for the whole investigation team to protect the interests of the company. As conflicts of interest can also arise during an investigation process, relying on the support of an outside legal team should be considered, particularly for internal investigations that are likely to expand.

The investigator would typically be a line manager or HR representative. Complex cases, particularly if criminality is suspected, or cases where a senior employee is accused of misconduct, may require the investigator to be someone more senior within the organisation, or someone from the in-house legal team. Employers should bear in mind the need for someone more senior than the investigator to act as a disciplinary decisionmaker, if disciplinary action is found to be warranted.

Check the organisation’s policies and procedures, which may stipulate who can act as an investigator.

The investigator should be someone without any personal involvement in the matters under investigation, or any conflict of interest, but with sufficient knowledge of the organisation and where possible with both training and experience in conducting investigations.

The business should consider how any prospective investigator may appear if they are called as a witness in court, or to give evidence before any governmental committee or regulatory panel. They should also consider whether the employee accused of wrongdoing should have any say in the choice of investigator; this would not typically occur, but having the employee’s buy-in can increase the chances of a successful outcome to the investigation.

It is becoming increasingly common for businesses to use an external consultant or lawyer to conduct workplace investigations. This may be beneficial where it is not operationally viable within the employer organisation to have a different person conducting the investigation and the disciplinary hearing, or if the investigation is particularly sensitive or complex, or relates to a very senior employee. If an external investigator is appointed, the employer remains responsible for that investigation.

While every internal investigation should be carried out promptly, thoroughly and in a well-documented manner, employers should appoint one individual or team of individuals to oversee all complaints regardless of how they are received. Doing so helps to ensure that all allegations are documented, reviewed and assigned for investigation as consistently as practicable.

Once a complaint is received and recorded, the company should undertake an initial triage process to determine:

• the risk of the alleged misconduct from a reputational, operational and legal perspective;
• who is best suited to conduct an investigation based on the nature of the alleged misconduct and the perceived risk level (potential candidates may include members of human resources, legal or compliance departments, or outside counsel); and
• a plan for investigating the factual allegations raised in the complaint.

The appropriate investigator should be able to investigate objectively without bias (ie, the investigator cannot have a stake in the outcome, a personal relationship with the involved parties and the outcome of the investigation should not directly affect the investigator’s position within the organisation); has skills that include prior investigative knowledge and a working knowledge of employment laws; has strong interpersonal skills to build a rapport with the parties involved and to be perceived as neutral and fair; is detail-oriented; has the right temperament to conduct interviews; can be trusted to maintain confidentiality; is respected within the organisation; and can act as a credible witness.

At this triage stage, an employer may also wish to use the information collected from the complaint to proactively identify potential patterns or systemic issues at an individual, divisional or corporate level and react accordingly. For example, if a company receives a complaint against a supervisor for harassing conduct and that same individual has already been the subject of previous complaints, the company should consider whether it may be appropriate to engage outside counsel to carry out a new investigation to bring objectivity and lend credibility to the review – even if the prior complaints were not ultimately substantiated following thorough internal investigations. Similarly, the engagement of outside counsel is often appropriate where a complaint involves alleged misconduct on the part of a company’s senior management or board members.

There are no statutory minimum qualifications or criteria for someone to conduct a workplace investigation. The employer can simply delegate the investigation task to anyone. However, it is good practice for qualified persons with proper training in workplace investigations to conduct the investigation as these involve intricate issues. It is also important that investigators are fair, unbiased, and impartial. In addition, they should not be related to any parties involved in the investigation.

In complex cases or cases involving a senior or high-ranking employee, the employer should appoint a person with a higher authority or rank in the company to lead and oversee the conduct of the investigation. This also applies in instances where it is foreseeable that the investigation may lead to disciplinary action, summary dismissal of the employee, or a report to an authority.

There are instances when engaging with external parties or professional advisors may be necessary. This is especially the case if the conduct under investigation is serious or widespread, which may lead to regulatory consequences if the employer does not have the expertise to handle the investigation.

Co-workers can be interviewed as part of an investigation where they are witnesses to a complaint.  If the employee refuses to attend the interview or is generally not cooperating with the investigation, the reasons for this will need to be considered carefully by the employer. Employers should consider whether there can be any amendments made to the interview process to accommodate the employee. However, an employer can make a reasonable and lawful direction to an employee to attend an interview. If an employee fails to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction, then it may constitute grounds for disciplinary action.  

Witnesses who are employees are entitled to the legal protections that ordinarily attach to their employment, including not being bullied, discriminated against, or harassed and having their health and safety protected. Employers should also ensure that witnesses are not victimised as a result of participating in the investigation and that confidentiality is maintained.

An essential part of an internal investigation is the questioning of employees. Their statements contribute significantly to clarifying possible violations. In particular, the legal principles that apply to criminal proceedings, including the right to refuse to testify, do not apply directly to internal investigations.

Employees do not legally have to participate in such interviews. Their duty to cooperate arises indirectly from other legal provisions, in particular from employees’ duties of loyalty and service under labour law.

Austrian law suggests there is a general principle of loyalty, which triggers a “duty to inform” under some circumstances; in principle, the employee and any witnesses are expected to provide information in the context of internal investigations. While the employee is not compelled to incriminate him or herself, he or she also may not withhold work-related information that the employer legitimately wishes to protect, for the sole reason that it might incriminate him or her. The decision as to whether the employee must disclose information depends on a balancing of interests in the specific case.

Investigators and employers must strictly adhere to the permissible limits. This requires compliance with labour law, criminal law and data protection law.

Employees cannot be forced by their employer to act as a witness. If they decide to nonetheless testify as a witness, they do not, in principle, have particular rights. If the employee puts himself in a difficult or even dangerous position to act as a witness, it is up to the employer to offer the necessary protection or take measures to prevent any harm (eg, by keeping the identity of the witness confidential or by planning the hearing at a place or time when the employees involved are not aware of it).  

However, this is not the case for whistleblowing reports, where a witness might be seen as a “facilitator” who can receive protection against any retaliation by the employer.

Also, workers who were direct witnesses to official allegations of sexual harassment, violence or bullying at work are protected against retaliation by the employer. This also applies to witnesses in court.

Employees cannot be compelled to act as witnesses. Employers may have trouble enforcing internal policies stating that employees who refuse to participate in investigations will be disciplined (warned, suspended or have their contract terminated for cause), but can terminate their contract without cause.

There are no explicit legal protections for employees acting as witnesses, but it is common best practice to have witnesses’ identities protected to the extent necessary for the investigation, and to protect them from retaliation.

Article 75 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC (Amended in 2021) provides, "All entities and individuals that are aware of the circumstances of a case shall have the obligation to testify in court. The persons-in-charge of relevant entities shall support the witnesses to testify in court. "Article 193 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC (Amended in 2018) provides, "Where, after the notification of a people's court, a witness refuses to testify in court without justified reasons, the people's court may compel the witness to appear in court, unless the witness is the spouse, a parent or a child of the defendant."

According to relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, only a court has the power to compel a witness to appear in court. Neither the employer nor any other individual may compel any colleague to act as a witness and testify in court. However, the employer may set forth in the employment contract or its internal rules and regulations that the employee shall cooperate with its internal investigation.

As for the legal system for witness protection, PRC's criminal procedure laws stipulate a relatively detailed legal system for witness protection, such as establishing a crime of retaliating against a witness; making public a witness's personal information such as name, address, employer and contact information for the purpose of protecting the personal safety of the witness; using assumed names in the indictments; and so on. However, there are relatively few legal provisions regarding the legal protection of witness in civil procedure, and provisions only regulate the expenses that may be incurred by the witness for testifying in court. For instance, Article 77 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC (Amended in 2021) provides, "The necessary expenses incurred by a witness in fulfilling his obligation to testify in court, including transportation, accommodation and meals, as well as the loss of salaries, shall be borne by the losing party. If a party applies for a witness to testify, the costs and expenses shall be advanced by the party; if the people's court notifies a witness to testify without the application by a party, the costs and expenses shall be advanced by the people's court. "

There is no legislation on a witness's role in investigations. However, the legislation on occupational safety requires that employees must report any irregularities they observe. Depending on the situation, participating in the investigation may also be part of the person's work duties, role or position, in which case the employer may require the employee to contribute to clarifying the situation. However, there is no formal obligation to act as a witness, and there is no legislation regarding the protection of witnesses. If a witness wishes, they may have, for example, an employee representative as a support person during the hearing. 

Co-workers can spontaneously act as witnesses and provide statements to superiors before, during or after the interviews. Co-workers can also be interviewed as witnesses at the investigator’s request, although they are not under any obligation to answer the questions and they cannot be compelled to do so. The investigators have an absolute obligation of discretion during the investigation and cannot reveal any details of the information gathered.

Certain employees may benefit from whistleblower status, which implies that they may be exempt from potential criminal and civil liability relating to their report or testimony and they are protected from any retaliatory measures from the employer. “Facilitators” who helped the whistleblower and the individuals connected with the whistleblower and risk retaliatory measures by testifying as a witness may also benefit from this status, as of 1 September 2022.

Since there is no mandatory law (yet) that provides a framework for workplace investigation interviews, there are also no special protective regulations for employees acting as witnesses.

Employees have a contractual duty to participate in interviews – be it as a suspect or as a witness – as part of workplace investigations. The employee must provide truthful information based on his duty of loyalty if:

• the questions relate to his area of work;
• the employer has an interest worthy of protection in obtaining the information; and
• the requested information does not represent an excessive burden for the employee.

Whether such a burden can be assumed when the employee must make statements by which he may incriminate himself is disputed in German case law and legal literature. The German Federal Labour Court has not yet decided on this question. Since an internal workplace investigation interview is an interview under private law and not under criminal law, there are, in our view, good arguments that the employee must also make a true statement even if he incriminates himself, provided his area of work is concerned. However, some labour courts assume that in these cases such a statement could not be used in criminal proceedings.

Indirectly involved employees may be interviewed as witnesses in the context of the investigation, as the employee has a duty of loyalty towards the employer originating from the employment relationship. However, they cannot be forced to do so (in contrast with criminal procedures). Any harmful act that could be considered retaliation against witnesses in the context of violence or harassment or whistleblowing investigation is prohibited. In addition, the identity of any employees as witnesses is also covered by the principle of confidentiality.  

Under Hong Kong law, the employee has an implied duty to obey lawful instructions from his or her employer and to serve the employer with fidelity and good faith during the term of his or her employment. A lawful instruction from an employer may include a reasonable request for the employee to participate and provide information in the workplace investigation. If the employee refuses to comply with such instruction or is obstructive or provides untrue or misleading information, it could constitute a ground for summary dismissal under the EO and at common law.

That said, in general terms, an employer should not compel any employee to testify against a co-worker, particularly if such a co-worker is a senior colleague, as evidence provided under compulsion may not be helpful to the investigation.

Employees who act as witnesses must be treated as per their contractual and statutory rights, including the right against self-incrimination. If the investigation involves allegations of discrimination on the ground of sex, race or disability, the employer should ensure that the witnesses will not be victimised or treated less favourably than other employees.

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

Yes, but a qualified yes. To deny an employee who is the respondent to the complaint the right to cross-examine the complainant during a workplace investigation may amount to a breach of fair procedures. This does not mean in practice that a complainant or witness will have to physically or virtually attend a meeting to be subjected to cross-examination. What usually happens, in practice, is that specific questions of the respondent are put to the witness by the investigator for them to respond. On occasion and depending on the circumstances, the witnesses may respond in writing.

Generally, if witnesses do not wish to participate in workplace investigations and they are not the witnesses from whom the complaint originated, there is little that can be done. An employee may not want to be seen as going against a colleague, which impacts the wider issue of staff morale. An employer cannot force them to participate. Also an employee who is the respondent should be careful about seeking to compel witnesses to attend. While the respondent may request support from a colleague to act as a witness, that colleague may view things differently, which can lead to further issues.

In any event, employees cannot be victimised or suffer any adverse treatment for having acted as a witness.

In general, employees must cooperate with a workplace investigation (as it is part of their general duty of diligence, as provided under article 2104 of the Italian Civil Code), and this may also include a duty to act as a witness.

In this respect, it must be pointed out that, even if the employee has a contractual duty to provide information requested by the employer, one limit to this principle could be, for example, self-incrimination.

However, caution is necessary during the interviews both with the employee under investigation and with co-workers, to avoid the risk of transforming the interview into what could be considered the de facto start of a disciplinary procedure. In other words, during the interview, the employer should only gather information on certain facts, and not put forward charges against the employee; otherwise, this could prevent or limit the employer’s possibility to take disciplinary action regarding the same facts.

Furthermore, employees who cooperate within the workplace investigation must be protected against any retaliatory action directly or indirectly linked to their testimony (eg, as far as is possible, anonymity should be guaranteed, and disciplinary measures should apply to those who breach measures in place to protect the employee).

Apart from workplace investigations, employees are protected against retaliatory measures of any kind, which are always null and void and subject to appeal.

For a defensive criminal law investigation (see par. 4), the witness can refuse to testify; in this case, the criminal law lawyer may ask the prosecutor to interview the witness.

Interviewing co-workers is often conducted in internal investigations. Company employees are generally required to cooperate with company investigations, especially those who are in a position to instruct and supervise employees, or those who are responsible for maintaining corporate order, since cooperation with an investigation is itself the fulfilment of their duty to the company. Other employees are not compelled to cooperate with such an investigation unless it is deemed necessary and reasonable. No specific legal protection is provided for testifying in an investigation.

There is no statutory regime for employee witnesses in internal (workplace) investigations and, hence, no specific statutory regime for legal protection. However, as part of the idea that employees have to act in line with good employment practices (section 7:611 DCC), employees, who potentially acquired knowledge in a work-related context on the subject matter of an investigation, are typically required vis-à-vis their employer to participate in such internal investigations. The required degree of cooperation will depend on the type and nature of the investigation and the matter that is being investigated. The principle of “good employment practices” in turn requires the employer to be guided by proportionality and subsidiarity considerations: which information is relevant to the investigation and what is the least burdensome means of collecting such information?

This may also impact the degree to which an employer can involve employee witnesses in an investigation. Increased prudence should be observed, among other things, if the relevant employee witnesses may themselves become implicated in the investigation or when the employer envisages sharing certain investigative findings with regulatory or criminal authorities, for instance as part of cooperation arrangements in an ongoing investigation. In such cases, the relevant employee should at least be allowed to retain legal counsel before continuing interview procedures.

The employee’s contract, employee handbook or company policies typically mandate an employee to cooperate and participate in good faith in any lawful internal investigation undertaken by the company, and also protects an employee acting as a witness in an internal investigation. Some of the legal protections available to an employee acting as a witness during workplace investigations are freedom from intimidation, threats or the loss of employment.

Neither the employer nor the employee subject of the investigation can compel co-workers to act as a witness. There is no specific law for whistleblowers or employees who act as witnesses during an investigation. Nevertheless, the employer can have its own whistleblower policy.

In general, an employee may not be forced to act as a witness, but based on the provisions of the Polish Labour Code, an employee must act for the benefit of a working establishment or employer and perform work in line with the instructions of an employer. A lack of cooperation from an employee (eg, refusing to attend a hearing, hiding facts or even false testimony) may constitute a basis for the loss of an employer’s trust in the employee and, as a consequence, may constitute a valid reason for termination (in some specific situations, even without notice).

There is no formal protection for employees who act as witnesses. However, participation in an investigation cannot result in negative consequences (eg, no retaliation is allowed). Also, during an investigation, employees who are bound by professional secrecy are not required to provide information that would imply a breach of such secrecy.

If the employer decides on an internal investigation to assess potential wrongful actions carried out within the company, employees must cooperate. However, employees are entitled to the privilege against self-incrimination established in the Portuguese Criminal Code, according to which individuals are not obliged to self-report.

An employee's refusal to cooperate with an internal investigation may be regarded as a breach of conduct by the employer and, ultimately, may lead to disciplinary sanctions.

Employees who act as witnesses in cases of harassment cannot be sanctioned unless they acted with wilful misconduct, and any sanction applied to an employee who acted as a witness in a harassment procedure will be presumed to be abusive.

Singapore law does not impose any statutory or legal obligation on an employee to act as a witness in the investigation. Accordingly, an employer does not have the power to compel its employees to act as witnesses in an investigation.

Notwithstanding this, an employer may require an employee to assist in investigations pursuant to specific contractual obligations in the employee’s terms of employment (as may be contained in the employment contract, employee handbook or the employer’s internal policies and procedures in dealing with the investigations, etc). Further, a request for an employee to provide evidence of an event that he or she knows of may reasonably be deemed to be a lawful and reasonable directive from an employer.

Consequently, an employee’s refusal to act as a witness may amount to an act of insubordination that may attract disciplinary action by the employer.

Employers requiring employees to act as witnesses in an investigation must ensure that they comply with the expectations and norms set out by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices and the TAFEP Grievance Handling Handbook.

While there are no laws to compel co-workers to act as witnesses, the company may have internal policies (eg, rules of employment, code of conduct) that require employees to cooperate with company actions such as a workplace investigation. That said, it would be difficult to enforce such policies even if the employee refuses to cooperate (eg, taking disciplinary action against an employee who refuses to act as a witness).

There may be instances when the company is required to provide certain legal protection to employees acting as witnesses in an investigation. For example, if a whistleblower falling under the WPA is required to act as a witness, they would be entitled to legal protections as discussed in question 1. The company may also have internal policies that provide protection to employees acting as witnesses in an investigation.

A company cannot force an employee to actively take part in a workplace investigation or to act as a witness. However, if a co-worker’s decision not to collaborate could be construed as an attempt to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, the company could then enforce disciplinary measures for this reason.

In our experience, employees tend to collaborate during workplace investigations and no retaliatory action can be taken against them for this reason. For example, if an employee provided evidence against his or her direct manager, the manager could not reprimand the employee or take any action that could be construed as such.

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

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

Due to the employee's duty of loyalty towards the employer and the employer's right to give instructions to its employees, employees generally must take part in an ongoing investigation and comply with any summons for questioning if the employer demands this (article 321d, Swiss Code of Obligations). If the employees refuse to participate, they generally are in breach of their statutory duties, which may lead to measures such as a termination of employment.

The question of whether employees may refuse to testify if they would have to incriminate themselves is disputed in legal doctrine.[1] However, according to legal doctrine, a right to refuse to testify exists if criminal conduct regarding the questioned employee or a relative (article 168 et seq, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code) is involved, and it cannot be ruled out that the investigation documentation may later end up with the prosecuting authorities (ie, where employees have a right to refuse to testify in criminal proceedings, they cannot be forced to incriminate themselves by answering questions in an internal investigation).[2]

Normally, the work rules prescribe requirements for cooperation with investigations. An employer may instruct co-workers to give statements as witnesses as this would be a fair and legitimate order of the employer, because investigations are conducted to maintain a good working environment.

Witness protection measures in a workplace can vary as no minimum standard has been set and they are generally subject to work rules and regulations. However, some legislation, which may not relate to a workplace investigation conducted by an employer, also protects the witnesses who are helping authorities investigate violations under the relevant acts. For example, the Labor Relation Act B.E. 2518 (1975) prohibits an employer from terminating an employee or conducting any action that may result in the employee being unable to work because of filing a complaint or being a witness for the authorities, or providing information on issues related to labour protection laws to the authorities.

The employer may have a policy of non-retaliation for the protection of witnesses who have given statements and evidence for a workplace investigation.

Co-workers cannot be compelled to act as witnesses in a workplace investigation. Employees also have rights arising from the law that must be respected by the employers and investigators, such as the right to privacy or to remain silent, freedom of expression and communication. These rights must be protected during every step of the workplace investigation process.

Employees may be reluctant to be interviewed or act as witnesses as part of an investigation, perhaps due to fear of reprisals. The investigator should discuss any concerns with the employee and attempt to alleviate any fears.

In general terms, an employer should not compel any employee to provide a witness statement. There may be circumstances in which this could be seen as a reasonable management instruction (and any refusal to comply treated as a disciplinary matter), but these will be rare. Evidence that is compelled is unlikely to be particularly useful to the investigator.

It may be possible to establish an express or implied obligation for senior managers to report on another employee's misconduct – as a feature of either their employment contractual duties, their fiduciary duties or their implied duty of fidelity. However, it is unlikely, in the absence of an express obligation, that a junior employee would be compelled to give evidence against a colleague.

Employees who act as witnesses benefit from their usual employment protections, and must be treated as per their contractual and statutory rights, as well as any policy governing the investigation. If the investigation involves allegations which could involve discrimination, the EA 2010 extends protection from victimisation to “giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act”. Witnesses should therefore not be subject to any detrimental treatment because they have acted as a witness in this type of investigation. Witnesses may also be entitled to protection as whistleblowers if their evidence amounts to a protected disclosure (see question 9).

Yes. The investigator is empowered to decide which witnesses should be interviewed as a part of the fact-gathering process. In addition to interviewing the complainant, the investigation should include individual interviews with other involved parties, including the subject of the complaint, as well as individuals who may have observed the alleged conduct or may have other relevant knowledge, including supervisors or other employees. Many companies’ code of conduct, employee handbook or similar policy set forth the requirement for current employees to cooperate fully in any investigation by the company or its external advisors and also provide that failure to do so could result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

In the absence of contractual protections, employees may have no legal right to refuse to submit to an interview, even if their answers tend to incriminate them. That being said, when acting as a witness in an internal investigation, a current employee is usually afforded similar legal protections as the subject of an investigation, including the right to oppose unreasonable intrusions into his or her privacy and unreasonable workplace searches. For example, certain state laws prohibit an employer from questioning an employee regarding issues that serve no business purpose.

There are no provisions in Vietnamese law that impose any statutory or legal obligation on an employee to act as a witness in an investigation. Hence, an employer does not have the power to compel its employees to act as witnesses in an investigation. However, a request for an employee to provide evidence or give details of an event that he or she knows of may reasonably be deemed to be a lawful and reasonable directive from an employer. Consequently, an employee’s refusal to act as a witness may be tantamount to an act of insubordination, which may lead to disciplinary action by the employer. In any circumstances, if an employee refuses to attend an interview or is generally not cooperating with an investigation, the reasons for this will need to be considered carefully by the employer.

As part of an investigation, the investigator may want to collect evidence such as camera footage from CCTV, swipe card records, computer records, telephone records or recordings and GPS tracking. There are state-based workplace surveillance laws that operate in each jurisdiction in Australia. The laws recognise that employers are justified in monitoring workplaces for proper purposes, but this is balanced against employees’ reasonable expectations of privacy.

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) also regulates how certain organisations handle personal information, sensitive personal information and employee records. The Privacy Act contains 13 privacy principles that regulate the collection and management of information. Employers should familiarise themselves with the privacy principles before conducting any investigation to ensure they are not in breach when gathering evidence.

All data processing must comply with the principles of article 5 GDPR (lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy, storage limitation and integrity). Personal data may only be collected and processed for specific, lawful purposes.

The admissibility of data processing depends on whether the suspicion relates to a criminal offence or another violation of the law. If the data processing is relevant to criminal law, article 10 GDPR or section 4(3) of the Austrian Data Protection Act (DSG) applies. If the investigations are exclusively to clarify violations under civil or labour law, such as an assertion of claims for damages or if they are general investigations to establish a criminal offence, the permissibility of data processing is based on article 6 or, for data covered by article 9 GDPR, on this provision.

Here, the investigation “collides” with the right to privacy of the persons involved.

First, the rules and principles of the GDPR will apply if personal data is involved. Therefore, the employer will have to find a data-processing ground, which could be his or her legitimate interest or the fact that the investigation could lead to legal proceedings, etc. The data processing should also be limited to what is proportionate and the data subjects should be informed. Due to this obligation, it is arguable that the GDPR policy already provides the necessary information for the employees not to jeopardise the investigation. In any case, data subjects should not be able to use their right to access data to ascertain the preliminary findings of the investigation (which are confidential) or any confidential identities involved (eg, in the whistleblower procedure, the identity of the report should be protected at all times).

Also, the employer should follow the procedure of Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 81 on searching the e-mails or computer files and internet searches of employees. This CBA limits the purposes for searches and lays down a double-phase procedure that needs to be followed if private data is involved. Next to this, the employer should also take into account the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which only allows e-mail and computer searches based on the following:

• whether the employee has been notified of the possibility that the employer might take measures to monitor correspondence and the implementation of such measures;
• the extent of the monitoring and the degree of intrusion into the employee’s privacy (including a distinction between the monitoring of the flow or the content of the communications);
• whether the employer has provided legitimate reasons to justify monitoring of the communications and accessing of their actual content; and
• whether it would have been possible to establish a monitoring system based on less intrusive measures, the consequences of the monitoring for the employee who is subject to it, and whether the employee had been provided with adequate safeguards.

Next, if the employer wants to use camera images, the rules of Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 68 should have been followed when installing cameras. If not, the images might have been collected illegally.

The Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD) does not have specific rules or principles that apply to internal investigations conducted within private organisations. Despite that, the general principles and obligations set forth by the LGPD apply to any processing of personal data carried out within the context of such investigations. As a result, the company must ensure the transparency of such processing activities through a privacy notice addressed to the data subjects; only process the personal data that is necessary for the investigation; define the lawful basis that applies to such processing activities (especially for sensitive data); and apply any other obligations established by the LGPD.

The Civil Code of the PRC, the Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC and other laws provide for the protection of employees' personal information and privacy. Employers are often involved in checking the information and materials stored in the computers, hard disks and other electronic office equipment provided to employees in internal investigation and are likely to access the employees' personal information including personal privacy information, such as the communication records stored in instant communication software such as WeChat, QQ or other instant communication software or to and from private email boxes. According to the Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC, employers are required to perform the obligation of informing and obtain the individuals' consent prior to the processing of personal information, i.e. the principle of informing + consent. Moreover, the Civil Code of the PRC stipulates that no organization or individual may process any person's private information, except as otherwise provided by law or with the explicit consent of the right holder.

Therefore, the legitimacy of obtaining data evidence can be enhanced and guaranteed only if it is explicitly stated in the relevant rules and regulations that the employer shall have the right to the work equipment provided to the employees or obtains the employees' personal consent.

Generally, the basic principles set out by the GDPR and the Finnish Data Protection Act apply to data processing in connection with investigations, including evidence gathering: there must be a legal basis for processing, personal data may only be processed and stored when and for as long as necessary considering the purposes of processing, etc.

Additionally, if physical evidence concerns the electronic communications (such as emails and online chats) of an employee, gathering evidence is subject to certain restrictions based on Finnish ePrivacy and employee privacy laws. As a general rule, an employee’s electronic communications accounts, including those provided by the employer for work purposes, may not be accessed and electronic communications may not be searched or reviewed by the employer. In practice, the employer may access such electronic correspondence only in limited situations stipulated in the Act on Protection of Privacy in Working Life (759/2004), or by obtaining case-specific consent from the employee, which is typically not possible in internal investigations, particularly concerning the employee suspected of wrongdoing.

However, monitoring data flow strictly between the employee and the employer's information systems (eg, the employee saving data to USB sticks, using printers) is allowed under Finnish legislation, provided that employee emails, chats, etc, are not accessed and monitored. If documentation is unrelated to electronic communications, it also may be reviewed by the employer. Laptops, paper archives and other similar company documentation considered "physical evidence" may be investigated while gathering evidence on the condition that any private documentation, communications, pictures or other content of an employee are not accessed.

GDPR principles fully apply to data gathering, as well as case law protecting the right to respect one’s private life and the secret of correspondence.

When collecting data (in physical or digital form), the employer must ensure compliance with the data protection principles according to the General Data Protection Regulation (DSGVO) and the German Data Protection Act (BDSG). These principles include, among other things, that data collection must be carried out lawfully (principle of legality) and transparently (transparency principle) and must be comprehensively documented – specifically concerning the purpose of the workplace investigation – to be able to prove compliance with data protection.

The principle of legality states that data may only be collected on a legal basis (ie, there must either be a law authorising this or the employee must have consented to the collection of his data).

The transparency principle may constitute a special challenge during workplace investigations. Under the transparency principle, the employee must be generally informed about the collection of his data. This includes information on who processes the data, the purposes for which it is processed and whether the data is made available to third parties. However, there may be a risk of collusion, particularly when electronic data has to be reviewed, and thus the success of the investigation may be jeopardised if the relevant employee is comprehensively informed in advance. Accordingly, the employer should check, with the assistance of the data protection officer, whether the obligation to provide information may be dispensed with. This may be the case if providing the information would impair the assertion, exercise or defence of legal claims and the interests of the employer in not providing the information outweigh the interests of the employee. The respective circumstances and employer's considerations should be well documented in each case.

Regardless of whether the employee is informed about the investigation, to prevent data loss, the employee should be sent a so-called hold notice (ie, a prohibition to delete data). Additionally, to prevent automatic deletion, blocking mechanisms should also be implemented.

When gathering evidence by searching the employee's possessions or files, the employee's privacy rights also need to be observed (see question 8).

GDPR and the provisions of L. 4624/2019 regulate the gathering of physical evidence from a data protection perspective, providing, among other things, that personal data should be processed with transparency and to the extent necessary for the investigation.

L.4990/2022 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law regulates data protection issues in the context of whistleblowing investigations, mainly to safeguard confidentiality throughout the investigations.  

If physical evidence contains data relating to an individual, from which the identity of the individual can be ascertained,[1] the data would constitute personal data under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (PDPO). The PDPO sets out several data protection principles that the employer must comply with while processing personal data, including:[2]

• personal data must be collected for a lawful purpose related to a function or activity of the employer and should not be excessive for this purpose. An internal investigation would be regarded as a lawful purpose;
• personal data must be accurate and not kept longer than is necessary;
• personal data must not be used for a purpose other than the internal investigation (or other purposes for which the data was collected) unless the employee consents to a new use or the new use falls within one of the exceptions provided in the PDPO;
• personal data must be safeguarded against unauthorised or accidental access, processing or loss; and
• the employee whose personal data has been collected has the right to request access to and correction of his or her personal data retained by the employer.

If an employer wants to gather evidence through employee monitoring, it should ensure that the act of monitoring complies with the data protection principles of the PDPO if the monitoring activity would amount to the collection of personal data. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data has issued guidelines to employers on the steps they can take in assessing whether employee monitoring is appropriate for their businesses.[3] As a general rule, employee monitoring should be conducted overtly. Further, those who may be affected should be notified in advance of the purposes the monitoring is intended to serve, the circumstances in which the system will be activated, what personal data (if any) will be collected and how the personal data will be used.

Covert surveillance of employees should not be adopted unless it is justified by relevant special circumstances. Employers should consider whether there is reason to believe that there is an unlawful activity taking place and the use of overt monitoring would likely prejudice the detection or collection of evidence.[4] Even if covert monitoring is justified, it should target only those areas in which an unlawful activity is likely to take place and be implemented for a limited duration of time.

In India, the collection, disclosure, transfer and storage of personal data is regulated by the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (SPD Rules). Accordingly, if during an investigation any sensitive personal information (such as information relating to passwords; financial information such as a bank account, credit or debit card or other payment instrument details; a physical, physiological or mental health condition; sexual orientation; medical history; and biometric information) is collected, then the requirements under the SPD Rules will need to be complied with. This would include obtaining an individual’s “informed consent” before collecting any sensitive personal data if such information is intended to be collected or stored in an electronic format.

Under the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject. The Data Protection Commission published Data Protection in the Workplace: Employer Guidance in April 2023, which is a useful guide.

Employers should exercise caution when gathering physical evidence that may involve the use of CCTV or other surveillance practices. The Irish Court of Appeal in the case of Doolin v DPC examined the use by an employer of CCTV footage for disciplinary purposes and found such use constituted unlawful further processing. The original reason for processing the CCTV footage was to establish who was responsible for terrorist-related graffiti that was carved into a table in the staff tearoom. It subsequently transpired Mr Doolin, who was in no way connected to the graffiti incident, had accessed the tearoom for unauthorised breaks and a workplace investigation followed. The original reason for viewing the CCTV related to security, but further use of the CCTV footage in the disciplinary investigation was not related to the original reason. This case confirms that employers must have clear policies in place in compliance with both GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 specifying the purpose for which CCTV or any other monitoring system is being used. Not only that, but these policies must be communicated to employees specifying the use of such practices.

It is not only data about the investigation that must be processed fairly, but any retention of the data, which can only be further processed with good reason. It is a legitimate business reason to retain data to deal with any subsequent requests or appeals under various internal or statutory processes, provided employees have been advised of the relevant retention period.

Several legal and case-law principles may be relevant depending on the kind of investigation, including the following:

• gathering evidence through employee “physical inspections and inspections on the employee’s belongings”: according to article 6 of the Workers’ Statute, these inspections are generally prohibited. They are permitted only where necessary to protect company assets (in such cases, corporal inspections may be carried out, subject to trade union agreement or National Labour Inspectorate authorisation, provided that, for example, they are carried out outside the workplace, that employees are selected with an automatic selection tool, and that the dignity and confidentiality of employees are protected);
• gathering evidence through “audiovisual equipment and other instruments from which the possibility of remote control of employees’ activities arises”: according to article 4 of the Workers’ Statute, remote systems cannot be directly aimed at controlling employees’ activity, but can only be put in place for organisational, production, work safety or asset-protection needs (which may result in an indirect control over employees’ activity), and may be installed before a trade union agreement or with previous authorisation from the National Labour Inspectorate; however, these rules do not apply to working tools in an employee’s possession (see question 8) and, in any case, employees must be informed of the possibility of remote control;
• gathering physical evidence through so-called defensive controls: according to the most recent case law, “defensive controls” can be defined as investigations carried out by the company where it has a suspicion of unlawful conduct by its employees. These controls can be carried out within certain limits and restrictions provided by case law – even in the absence of the guarantees provided for in article 4 of the Workers’ Statute.

In addition, when gathering physical evidence, there may be other provisions of law not strictly related to employment law that must be followed, for example, regarding privacy regulations (eg, minimisation of the use of personal data, collection of data only for specific purposes, and adoption of safety measures).

When collecting physical evidence that contains personal information, the Personal Information Protection Law and its related guidelines apply. In addition, when collecting physical evidence that contains privacy information or an employee's photograph, care must be taken to ensure that the right to privacy and the image rights are not violated.

Dutch data protection rules are based on the EU Data Protection Directive. The employer has to notify the Dutch Data Protection Authority when processing personal data as part of an internal investigation. Given that the notification can be accessed publicly, it is recommended that the employer give a sufficiently high-level description of the case. In addition, the description should be sufficiently broad to include the entire investigation, and any future expansions of the scope of the investigation. Often companies make filings for all future internal investigations, without referring to specific matters.

The employer has to notify employees whose personal data is being processed about – among other things – the purposes of the investigation and any other relevant information. According to the Dutch Data Protection Act, this information obligation may only be suspended on restricted grounds, i.e. if the purpose of the investigation is the prevention, detection and prosecution of crimes and postponement is necessary for the interests of the investigation (e.g., because there is a risk of losing evidence, or collusion by individuals coordinating responses before being interviewed)). These exceptions on the duty to inform involved persons must be interpreted very restrictively. As soon as the reason for postponement is no longer applicable (e.g., because the evidence has been secured), the individuals need to be informed.

Dutch data protection law does not require the consent of employees. Consent given by employees, however, also cannot compensate for a lack of legitimate purpose or unnecessary or disproportionate data processing, as the consent given by an employee to its employer is not considered to be voluntary given the inequality of power between them.

Furthermore, internal company policies may contain specific data protection rules.

When gathering evidence, the person being investigated is protected by the Constitution, the Freedom of Information Act and the Nigerian Data Protection Regulation (NDPR), among others.

The Constitution, particularly section 37, guarantees the right of a person to privacy.

The NDPR is the main data protection regulation in Nigeria. It regulates the processing and transfer of personal data.

Further, the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 prohibits the disclosure of information gathered during an investigation to the public.

The procedure for gathering physical evidence is governed primarily by company policy. Nevertheless, the Data Privacy Act of the Philippines protects all data subjects from unlawful processing of their personal information without consent.

If personal data is involved – the rules and principles of the GDPR will apply. If the physical evidence includes e-mail correspondence, files, or an employee’s equipment and possessions, the Labour Code will apply (ie, as a general rule, to monitor it, a monitoring policy must be implemented at that working establishment). Such a policy must strictly determine the aim of the surveillance and an employer must only apply surveillance in situations that reflect this aim. Also, when it comes to monitoring correspondence, it must not infringe on the secrecy of the correspondence, which in practice means that the employer should not check employees’ private correspondence when checking their business mailboxes.

Whenever employers process personal data in the course of an investigation, they need to comply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the GDPR) and Law 58/2019, which implements the GDPR in Portugal (jointly the Data Protection Regulations). If the gathering of physical evidence includes the collection and processing of sensitive data (eg, related to the employee’s health or any other category outlined in article 9 of the GDPR), additional safety measures should be in place to safeguard the adequate and confidential nature of such information.

The employer may collect the personal data of an individual without the individual’s consent or from a source other than the individual, where it is necessary for any investigation according to section 17(1) read with paragraph 4 of Part 3 of the Third Schedule of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA). Under section 2(1) of the PDPA, “investigation” means an investigation relating to:

• a breach of an agreement;
• a contravention of any written law, or any rule of professional conduct or other requirement imposed by any regulatory authority in the exercise of its powers under any written law; or
• a circumstance or conduct that may result in a remedy or relief being available under any law.

Under the Banking Act 1970, a bank and its officers cannot disclose customer information to third parties, subject to certain exceptions. An employer carrying out a workplace investigation does not fall within any of the exceptions.

It may be difficult for a company to search and collect physical items that personally belong to the employee.

While the company may search and gather electronic data, such as emails or files stored in work laptops or company servers, there are requirements and restrictions under the Criminal Code, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), and the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilisation and Information Protection, etc (Network Act), among other laws. 

Article 316(2) of the Criminal Code states that accessing the contents of another person’s documents, pictures, special media records, etc, that are sealed or designated as secret using technical means may constitute the crime of accessing electronic records.

Under the PIPA, consent must be obtained from the information owner to collect or use personal information, or to provide such information to a third party. Consent must be separately obtained for sensitive information or unique identification information. There are strict requirements as to the format and contents of the consent forms under the PIPA.

The Network Act prohibits accessing an information and communications network without rightful authority or any intrusion that goes beyond the permitted authority for access. Although this may not be an issue if a company directly manages the email accounts at issue, if an employee’s email account is protected by a password or through other means, accessing emails from that account without obtaining the employee’s consent could constitute unlawful intrusion under the Network Act as well as under the Criminal Code as discussed above.

The General Data Protection Regulation and the Spanish Data Protection Law apply when gathering any type of evidence, including physical evidence. This means that companies may only process personal data when they have lawful grounds to do so and within the limits set forth for special categories of personal data (health, union affiliation, criminal records, etc.).

The Spanish Statute of Workers specifically states that employees and their possessions may be registered when it is necessary to protect the companies’ property (or the property of other co-workers). This registration must:

• be conducted in the workplace and during working hours;
• respect the employee’s privacy and dignity; and
• be performed in front of an employee representative or, if not possible, in the presence of another employee of the company.

To the extent the gathering of physical evidence includes the processing of personal data, please see question 1.

The Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection applies to the gathering of evidence, in particular such collection must be lawful, transparent, reasonable and in good faith, and data security must be preserved.[1]

It can be derived from the duty to disclose and hand over benefits received and work produced (article 321b, Swiss Code of Obligations) as they belong to the employer.[2] The employer is, therefore, generally entitled to collect and process data connected with the end product of any work completely by an employee and associated with their business. However, it is prohibited by the Swiss Criminal Code to open a sealed document or consignment to gain knowledge of its contents without being authorised to do so (article 179 et seq, Swiss Criminal Code). Anyone who disseminates or makes use of information of which he or she has obtained knowledge by opening a sealed document or mailing not intended for him or her may become criminally liable (article 179 paragraph 1, Swiss Criminal Code).

It is advisable to state in internal regulations that the workplace might be searched as part of an internal investigation and in compliance with all applicable data protection rules if this is necessary as part of the investigation.

The basic premise is that all evidence is admissible unless it violates the law of admissibility and production of evidence, which may vary depending on the jurisdiction. In a criminal court, for example, evidence gathered in violation of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine would be typically inadmissible, yet in a civil court, this doctrine would not be an exclusionary rule.

The Personal Data Protection Act, BE 2562 (2019) (PDPA), which is the main data protection law in Thailand, applies when collecting, using, and disclosing pieces of evidence containing the personal data of employees. If the investigation requires sensitive information of the employee under investigation, for example, race, ethnic origin, political opinion, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual behavior, criminal records, health data, disability, genetic data and biometric data, consent from the employee should be obtained.

The conditions applicable to gathering physical evidence mainly stem from the precedents of the Turkish Constitutional Court about employment disputes and the rules set forth under Turkish Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (DPL). It is generally accepted that employers can gather physical evidence for certain legitimate purposes, such as disciplinary investigations, the prevention of bribery and corruption, fraud or theft, money laundering, and employee performance monitoring and compliance. In doing so, employers must, however, comply with the fundamental principles of the Turkish Constitutional Court as briefly described below:

• The grounds for the gathering of evidence must be legitimate. The definition of the legitimate interests of the employer may change depending on the characteristics of the business, workplace and employee job description, as well as the specific circumstances of the case. Therefore, it is advisable to carry out a balancing test between the legitimate interest the employer is seeking to protect and the employee’s interest in the protection of their privacy.
• The collection activities must be proportionate, in the sense that the measure implemented by the employer must be appropriate and reasonably necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose, without infringing upon the fundamental rights and freedoms of the employees. For instance, e-mail monitoring to collect evidence may not be proportionate if it is determined that e-mails that are not related to the incident subject to investigation are also accessed. To achieve this, certain keywords or algorithms can be used while monitoring e-mails during a disciplinary investigation.
• The collection process must be necessary to achieve the purpose. In other words, the collection of physical evidence must only be carried out to the extent there are no other measures allowing the employer to achieve its purpose, such as witness testimony, workplace records, or examining the results of projects. If the purpose can be achieved through less invasive means, the collection of physical evidence may not comply with the principles established by the decisions of the Constitutional Court.

Separately, depending on the type of physical evidence collected, the collection process may lead to the processing of the concerned employees’ personal data. Under the DPL, personal data collected in Turkey can only be processed if the explicit consent of the data subject is obtained; or the data is processed based on one of the exceptions to consent provided by the law. To the extent the data processing can be deemed to be based on the pursuit of a legitimate interest of the employer, it should also meet the following conditions:

• it should be the most convenient and efficient method to identify any employee wrongdoing to protect the legitimate interests of the company; and
• the data processing should not harm the fundamental rights and freedoms of the employees.

The employer should in any case comply with the obligation to inform employees before the processing of their data, through a privacy notice containing mandatory information required by the DPL.

In addition, as a general principle, the evidence-gathering process should always be conducted based on the assumption that the internal investigation can lead to litigation. Any evidence that will be used in litigation needs to have been gathered in compliance with the law. In both criminal and civil litigation, the courts will review each piece of evidence to confirm whether it was gathered through lawful methods and disregard any evidence that fails to comply with due process.

Most forms of workplace surveillance involve the processing of personal data that is regulated by the UK GDPR and DPA 2018. The UK GDPR requires that personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner; it also must be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary concerning the purposes for which it is processed.

Employers should ensure that they have undertaken a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) to document the lawful basis for processing data, and informed employees that their files may be searched before proceeding. They should also ideally have a clear policy on the use of electronic communications systems, detailing when, how and for what purpose they may be monitored by the employer. In Q3 2023 the ICO produced new guidance on monitoring workers (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/employment/monitoring-workers/) and on email and security (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/security/email-and-security/) which employers should bear in mind during investigations. Employers should also be prepared to make the data collected through employee monitoring available to employees, should the employee submit a data subject access request under the DPA 2018.

The IPA 2016 makes it unlawful in certain circumstances to intercept a communication (such as one on an employer’s telephone or computer network) in the course of its transmission in the UK. The IPA Regs 2018 set out the circumstances where, in a business context, such interception will be lawful. These include monitoring or recording communications without consent to: establish the existence of facts; ascertain compliance with the regulatory or self-regulatory practices or procedures relevant to the business; ascertain or demonstrate standards which are or ought to be achieved by persons using the system; and prevent or detect crime.

Covert surveillance can lead to a breach of an employee's right to privacy under the HRA 1998. The employer will need to consider if covert surveillance is proportionate, which will depend on the facts of each case. Employers should be careful not to use the investigation as an excuse to undertake a "fishing expedition", and should avoid gathering material that is obviously personal, such as private messages and diary entries (see question 8).

Documents and instruments that set out a company’s policies (eg, employee handbooks, code of conduct or other written guidelines) often contain provisions regarding employee data and document collection, workplace searches, communication monitoring, privacy, and confidentiality. As discussed below, state and federal constitutional, statutory and common law – and in some cases foreign data privacy regimes – may provide additional protections to protect employees from an unwarranted or unreasonable invasion of privacy during an internal investigation.

Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on personal data protection is the main data protection regulation in Vietnam. It regulates the processing of personal data, including the collection or gathering of data. If the physical evidence contains personal data of an individual, the gathering of physical evidence must comply with this decree.

During the investigation, unrelated matters can come to light, usually made by the complainant or a witness during the interview process. Unrelated matters may take the form of further complaints against the respondent (but on grounds that are outside the scope of the current investigation), or entirely different complaints.

An employer should first assess the nature of the new allegations. Entirely unrelated matters should be dealt with separately. However, if the matter relates to the respondent it may be appropriate to obtain consent from the respondent and complainant for the scope of the investigation to be widened. It is important to remember that all allegations must be put to the respondent and they must be given an opportunity to respond.

The employer must decide how to deal with this information. Possible options are to initiate separate and unrelated investigations or to extend the ongoing investigations.

If the investigation is not protected by confidentiality towards the employer (e.g. the prevention advisor cannot disclose confidential information to the employer), it could result in further measures taken by the employer or lead to a new investigation.

If unrelated matters are revealed as a result of the investigation, the company must be notified and must start a new investigation regarding them per the appropriate rules, without affecting the original investigation.

If any matter unrelated to this investigation is revealed during the investigation and the matter is suspected of violating regulations, the employer may comprehensively consider whether it is necessary to investigate the new matter. If the employer assesses that a combined investigation will seriously affect and hinder the progress of the investigation or complicate the investigation, the employer can handle the unrelated matters through separate investigations.

In addition, Article 6 of the Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC requires that the processing of personal information shall be for a specific and reasonable purpose and shall be directly related to the purpose of the processing and shall adopt the method with minimum impact on individuals' rights and interests. If the result of the investigation reveals unrelated personal information, it means that the collection and storage of such personal information are unrelated to the purpose of the processing. According to paragraph 1 of Article 47 of the Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC, the employer as the personal information processor shall take the initiative to delete personal information. If the employer fails to delete such information, the employee is entitled to request for deletion.

If they are related to the work or workplace, the employer will handle the emerging matters separately. In internal investigations, the employer is allowed to use any material legally available.

Unrelated matters revealed during the investigation do not necessarily mean that another investigation will be opened. Nevertheless, if reprehensible acts unrelated to the current investigation are revealed, the employer will need to take action and sanction the perpetrator (after checking the facts). Sometimes the only way to check the facts is to carry out another investigation on a separate matter. However, the investigation team may also consider if there is enough connection between the matters to widen the scope of the current internal investigation.

There are no specific rules if unrelated matters are revealed during the investigation. If, in the course of the workplace investigation, new facts are discovered, the same principles apply as for the original reason for the investigation and the employer should consider whether to extend the investigation to the new matter too.

If any unrelated matters are revealed as a result of an investigation and are of legal importance, the applicable legal provisions must be implemented and any relevant policies or agreements between the involved parties should be taken into account. For example, if the reporting procedure sheds light on other criminal acts, criminal law procedure may be followed if the matter is reported to the competent authorities.

If these unrelated matters fall under the ambit of another company’s policies, the relevant procedures may also be followed separately. However, the employee under investigation must be allowed to defend him or herself, otherwise he or she may raise complaints relating to the procedural guarantees of the investigation.

If unrelated matters are revealed during the investigation, the employer should consider whether an investigation is needed. If yes, the employer should decide whether it is appropriate to incorporate the new matters into the scope of the existing investigation by expanding the terms of reference. However, it may not be appropriate to do so if different individuals are concerned or such inclusion would unduly complicate or delay the progress of the existing investigation. If that is the case, the employer should commence a separate investigation.

Where unrelated matters are revealed during, or because of, the investigation, the course to be adopted may depend on several factors. Normally, if additional instances of misconduct are revealed against the same accused employee, even if they are unrelated to the original investigation, it would be advisable to independently investigate those issues too, to ensure that there are comprehensive grounds for any future disciplinary inquiry or action. If unrelated matters are revealed against other stakeholders involved in the investigation – for example, a forensic review reveals that the complainant or some witnesses have themselves potentially engaged in some other form of policy breach – whether or not those issues are investigated (as well as the timing of such investigation) would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Issues to consider include whether these matters affect the credibility of their statements, point at some form of other conspiracy, or create the risk of retaliation claims at a later date.

In SH matters, however, if the complaint involves instances of sexual harassment as well as other forms of general harassment or misconduct, to the extent such other issues aren't linked to the instances of sexual harassment (eg, creation of a hostile work environment for the complainant), these other concerns should preferably not be investigated by the IC and instead should be referred to the employer to address, as per its general grievance-redressal mechanisms.

If an investigator finds other issues that are outside the scope of the terms of reference, these should not be ignored but equally should not be included as part of the investigation, as they are beyond the remit of the investigation that was established at the beginning. An investigator should identify the other matters that may require further action and report these to the employer separately so as not to conflate issues.

If further misconduct (unrelated to the investigation matters) is revealed, the company may start a new investigation.

Furthermore, even if the employee has a contractual duty to provide the information requested by the employer, one limit to this principle could be, for example, self-incriminating statements of the employee acting as a witness. However, if an employee nevertheless makes self-incriminating statements, the company could decide to start a new investigation.

Even if a matter arises that is not subject to the investigation, it can be used as an opportunity to conduct another investigation.

If the investigation yields unrelated matters, the employer will need to decide whether such matters should be followed up in the same or a separate investigation. If such matters include new allegations against an employee that are already involved in the investigation, the employer should, before interviewing (or at the start of such an interview) inform the implicated employees of the relevant new allegations that are the subject of the investigation.

Where unrelated matters are revealed as a result of the investigation, the body investigating the employee is expected to inform the employee of the new matters and give him adequate time to respond.

However, there are exceptional cases where a crime is revealed during an investigation. In such instances, the employer is required to report its findings to the police for investigation and possible prosecution.

If unrelated matters are revealed because of a workplace investigation, the employer may look into the new matter and then determine whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with an administrative disciplinary process for the new matter.

It depends on the circumstances of the revealed issue and the employer’s compliance culture. Normally, if a new issue is revealed during the investigation, it should be analysed and investigated if appropriate.

If new facts arise as a result of the investigation and they are relevant, the employer may include them in the accusation. If, however, the new facts are revealed after the accusation has been served, the employer will have to prepare an addendum to the initial accusation and the employee will be able to use the same defence rights against that addendum.

If unrelated matters that require further investigation are revealed as a result of the investigation, the employer should take the necessary steps to investigate these matters, where relevant, under the employer’s grievance reporting, investigation and disciplinary processes. This should be done separately and independently from the existing investigation. Please note that section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code imposes a legal duty on any person who is aware that another has committed certain specified offences to "immediately" report the matter to the police, "in the absence of reasonable excuse" not to do so. Failure to comply with this requirement is punishable with imprisonment for up to six months, and/or a fine.

Sometimes, the company discovers other potential misconduct in addition to the specific allegations that trigger a workplace investigation. No law limits the scope of the company’s investigation to the allegations that were initially raised.

The issue with revealing unrelated matters to the investigation is that it may jeopardise the entire enquiry. If the unrelated matters are private or the disclosure is construed as a breach of employees’ fundamental rights, then the materials gathered during the investigation could be considered to be unlawfully obtained and would not be admitted as evidence in court.

Moreover, the employee could seek damages and a fine could be imposed on the company for breaching its employee’s rights.

Finally, if unrelated matters are revealed, it could be a clear sign that the company has failed to conduct a diligent investigation and use the least intrusive means available to it (see question 1). One of the reasons to minimise the number of employees conducting the investigation (see question 4) is to reduce damages if matters unrelated to the investigation are revealed.

According to the GDPR, personal data can only be processed for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and may not be further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes. This imposes restrictions on the use of material from previous investigations in new investigations when the material was collected for other purposes. It is, therefore, necessary to ensure whether the new matter relates to the investigation and falls within the purpose of the investigation. If the new matter is unrelated to the investigation and does not fall within the purpose of the investigation, the identified information may not be processed under the GDPR.

Except for what is stated above, no regulation limits how the employer can use information regarding unrelated matters. Unrelated matters may be a myriad of different things, and could in some instances just be discarded, while in other situations the information may invoke a responsibility to act for the employer (eg, if the unrelated matters concern work environment issues or other severe misconduct by an employee who is not the target of the investigation). Furthermore, the employer may always use any revealed information (unrelated or not) as evidence in a court of law, since the principle of free examination of evidence applies.

There are no regulations in this regard in the Swiss employment law framework. However, in criminal proceedings, the rules regarding accidental findings apply (eg, article 243, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code for searches and examinations or article 278, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code for surveillance of post and telecommunications). In principle, accidental findings are usable, with the caveat of general prohibitions on the use of evidence.

Subject to the grievance protocol in place, any matter that emerges during the investigation should be handled separately as a fresh report of potential misconduct that needs further investigation.

If an unrelated matter is revealed during the investigation, an independent assessment needs to be made as to whether this new matter requires to be included in the same internal investigation, or a separate/new one should be commenced.  

These should typically be disregarded by the investigator. From a data protection perspective, the ICO’s position is that other information collected during an investigation should be disregarded and, where feasible, deleted unless it reveals information that no reasonable employer could be expected to ignore. In those circumstances, the employer should arrange for an independent third party to determine whether a separate investigation into unrelated matters is needed.

Where new issues or claims arise during an ongoing workplace investigation, the investigator should discuss with in-house counsel whether the new issues or claims should be separately investigated and if so, by whom, or if instead those new issues or claims are sufficiently related to the current review that they can be investigated in parallel and incorporated into the ongoing fact-gathering process. 

If unrelated matters are revealed during the investigation, the employer should consider whether an investigation is needed. If necessary, the employer should decide whether it is appropriate to incorporate the new matters into the scope of the existing investigation by expanding the terms of reference. However, such action may not be appropriate if different individuals are involved or the inclusion of a new unrelated matter would unduly complicate or delay the progress of the existing investigation. If that is the case, the employer should investigate that matter separately.

Also, as detailed in article 19 of the 2015 Criminal Code of Vietnam, there is a legal duty on any person who is aware that a certain violation is being committed or has been committed to report it to the police unless otherwise provided for under law. Failure to comply with this requirement may lead to criminal liability for the offender.