Workplace Investigations
Contributing Editors
Workplace investigations are growing in number, size and complexity. Employers are under greater scrutiny as of the importance of ESG rises. Regulated industries such as finance, healthcare and legal face additional hurdles, but public scrutiny of businesses and how they treat their people across the board has never been higher. Conducting a fair and thorough workplace investigation is therefore critical to the optimal operation, governance and legal exposure of every business.
IEL’s Guide to Workplace Investigations examines key issues that organisations need to consider as they initiate, conduct and conclude investigations in 29 major jurisdictions around the world.
Learn more about the response taken in specific countries or build your own report to compare approaches taken around the world.
Choose countries
Choose questions
Choose the questions you would like answering, or choose all for the full picture.
08. Can the employer search employees’ possessions or files as part of an investigation?
08. Can the employer search employees’ possessions or files as part of an investigation?
Australia
Australia
- at People + Culture Strategies
- at People + Culture Strategies
- at People + Culture Strategies
The starting position is that there is no general right for an employer to search an employee’s possessions. However, an employer may be able to undertake a search in circumstances where:
- the employee consents to the search;
- there is a “right to search” contained in a contract, policy, procedure or industrial instrument; or
- the request to search constitutes a lawful and reasonable direction.
If an employee agrees to a search of their possessions, this consent should be confirmed in writing. If the employee does not consent then the employer can issue a direction to the employee. If the direction is lawful and reasonable, and the employee does not comply, then disciplinary action may be considered.
Austria
Austria
- at GERLACH
- at GERLACH Rechtsanwälte
In general, it is advisable to back up data, documents, emails and other records promptly to prevent their deletion. Admissibility depends on whether the data originates from personal or professional records and whether they are legally relevant. If internal investigations are carried out based on a specific suspicion of a criminal offence, it is the processing of legally relevant data. In general, the processing of professional emails or documents is permissible. If there is no professional connection, access to private files and documents is only permitted in exceptional cases.
If, for example, using a business email account for private purposes is not allowed, the employer can usually assume that the data processed is only "general" data within the meaning of article 6 GDPR and that such data processing is justified by a balancing of interests. However, if private use is allowed, the data may still be part of a special category within the meaning of article 9 GDPR. In such cases, the justification for its use must be based on one of the grounds explicitly mentioned in article 9(2) GDPR.
The employer must protect the employee's rights under section 16 of the ABGB and must consider the proportionality of the interference. Only the least restrictive means – the method that least interferes with the employee's rights – may be used to obtain the necessary information. The employer's interest in obtaining the information must outweigh the employee's interest in protecting his or her rights. The implementation or initiation of controls by the employer does not automatically constitute an interference with personal rights, as being subject to the employer's rights of control is part of the position as an employee.
Belgium
Belgium
- at Van Olmen & Wynant
The employer is, in principle, not entitled to search the employee’s private possessions, except with the explicit consent of the employee. Digital files on the computer or laptop of an employee can be searched under the rules of CBA No. 81 (see question 7) and other privacy rules.
Brazil
Brazil
- at CGM
- at CGM
No; employers are only generally allowed to search the work tools they provide to employees, such as company mobile phones, electronic files, and company email and other electronic communications. However, they may also request that employees turn over any company documents in their possession.
Searches of employees’ private possessions or files during an investigation can only occur with the verifiable consent of the employee.
China
China
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
Article 13 of the Constitution of the PRC provides that the lawful private property of the citizens shall not be violated. Therefore, during the process of investigation, without the employees' consent, the employer has no right to search the employees' personal possessions or files. If it is necessary to search the employees' personal possessions or files, the employer may require the employees to sign a Letter of Informed Consent before searching; or the employer may call the police and the search will be conducted under the escort of the public security authorities or directly by the public security authorities.
Finland
Finland
- at Roschier
- at Roschier
Only the police can search employees' possessions (assuming that the prerequisites outlined in the legislation are met).
France
France
- at Bredin Prat
- at Bredin Prat
In internal investigations, the fundamental rights and freedoms of employees are at stake, including the right to privacy, respect for the privacy of home life and correspondence, freedom of expression, and the obligation of loyalty in searching for evidence.
In principle, work emails and files can be reviewed, even without the employee's consent, prior knowledge or warning. This includes: work email accounts; files stored on a work computer or a USB key connected to a work computer; and SMS messages and files stored on a work mobile phone and documents stored in the workplace unless they are labelled as “personal”. On the other hand, it is not permissible for an employer (or an investigator) to review “personal” emails and files, such as documents or emails identified as “personal” by the employee, or personal email accounts (Gmail, Yahoo, etc), even if accessed from a work computer.
There are certain exceptions to the above principle. An employer is allowed to check “personal” emails or data in any of the following cases:
- if the employee is present during the review;
- if the employee is absent, but was duly notified and invited to be present;
- if there is a particularly serious “specific risk or event”;
- if the review is authorised by a judge (this means having to prove a legitimate reason justifying not informing the employee).
When documents or emails are not marked as “personal” but contain information of a personal nature, the employer may open and review the data but may not use such documents or emails to justify applying disciplinary measures to the employee or use such documents or emails as evidence in court if they indeed relate to the employee’s private life.
Special attention must be given to employee representatives who must be entirely free to carry out their duties.
Germany
Germany
- at Hengeler Mueller
- at Hengeler Mueller
- at Hengeler Mueller
Files and documents that are purely business-related – whether in physical or digital form – may, in principle, be inspected by the employer without restriction. The employee has no right to refuse inspection.
When searching business laptops, computers, phones and e-mail accounts, a distinction must be made as to whether private use is permitted (or at least tolerated) or not: if the employee is allowed to use the items exclusively for business purposes, the employer may monitor and control them. If private use is permitted, the employee's right to privacy must be observed for private files, as must the protection of the secrecy of correspondence. Accordingly, the employer must avoid accessing private documents, files and e-mails. However, a review of private documents, files and e-mails may be permissible in the event of particularly serious violations if the employer's interest in the review outweighs the employee's interest in safeguarding his right to privacy. Generally, employers should allow private use of electronic devices only if employees have previously consented to the terms of use (including searches in certain cases).
A search of the employee's workplace by the employer is, in principle, permissible. However, a search of personal items (eg, bags, clothes, personal mobile phone) is generally only permissible with the employee's consent. Similarly to the review of digital personal data, a search of personal items may be permitted, however, in the event of particularly serious violations if the employer's interest in the search outweighs the employee's right to privacy.
Greece
Greece
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
As a first step, the employer should ask for the employee’s permission to access their possessions and files. Employment contracts and internal labour regulations may include provisions regarding an employer’s access to employees’ documents created and kept for business purposes or related to business activity.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
As part of an investigation, an employer may search objects or files that are the company’s property (eg, electronic devices given by the employer for business purposes and emails or messages stored on the company’s server) without prior notice and the employee’s consent is not needed. The employer, however, has no right to search an employee’s possessions (eg, a private smartphone) without the employee’s consent.
To avoid arguments as to who a particular object belongs to, employers may specify in internal policies what is to be regarded as a corporate asset and could be subject to a search in a workplace investigation.
Concerning an employee’s possessions, even if he or she consents to a search, it is good practice for the employer to conduct the search in the presence of the employee or an independent third party who can act as a witness to the search. If the employer suspects that a criminal offence has been committed and that a search of the employee’s possessions would reveal evidence, the employer should consider reporting its suspicion to the police, as they have wider legal powers to search.[1]
[1] Usually upon execution of a warrant.
India
India
- at Trilegal
- at Trilegal
- at Trilegal
Yes, an employer can search its employees’ official possessions and files as part of an investigation. It may be difficult, however, to seize personal assets or possessions of an employee (such as the individual’s mobile phone or personal laptop).
Employers should expressly create policies that address key issues associated with employee surveillance, forensic searches and investigations, such as:
- whether or not the official assets and infrastructure of the company can be used for personal purposes by employees;
- the organisation's right to monitor, surveil or search any authorised or unauthorised use of its corporate assets; and
- that the employee should not have any expectation of privacy when using the companies’ resources, etc.
Any forensic review of digital data must be carried out with due regard to Indian rules of evidence to avoid situations where such evidence becomes unreliable in a future legal claim or dispute.
Ireland
Ireland
- at Ogier
- at Ogier
The first consideration here is what constitutes "employees' possessions". More often than not, employees will be using employer property and there should be clear policies in place that specify company property.
The difficulty arises if an employee is using personal equipment such as a mobile phone for work purposes. While there may be specific applications dealing with work-related matters that are accessible by the employer remotely, some applications may be device-specific and that is where issues may arise. In such instances, it is not unreasonable to ask the employee to provide such information or consent to a search of their personal property. However, this is the exception rather than the rule and all other legitimate avenues of obtaining such information should be explored first. Further, such requests for information should not be a fishing expedition as an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy at work, which must be balanced against the rights of the employer to run their business and protect the interests of their organisation.
A search of physical items such as a desk or drawers should only be conducted in exceptional circumstances, even where there is a clear, legitimate justification to search and the employee should be present at the search.
Italy
Italy
- at BonelliErede
- at BonelliErede
In light of the legal and case-law principles as outlined above:
- see question 7 regarding employee “physical inspections and inspections on the employee’s belongings”;
- regarding “audiovisual equipment and other instruments from which the possibility of remote control of employees’ activities also arises”, article 4 of the Workers’ Statute provides for:
- the prohibition of the use of audiovisual equipment and instruments of “direct” remote control (ie, whose sole purpose is to verify the manner, quality and quantity of working performance (eg, a camera installed in an office to film employees’ working activities, without any other purpose));
- the possibility of carrying out controls through audiovisual equipment and “indirect” remote instruments (ie, instruments that serve different needs (organisational, production, work safety or company assets’ protection), but which indirectly monitor working activities (eg, a camera installed in a warehouse to prevent theft, but which indirectly monitors the activity of warehouse workers), which may only be installed with a trade union agreement (or National Labour Inspectorate authorisation);
- the possibility of carrying out checks using working tools in the employee’s possession (e.g., PCs, tablets, mobile phones, e-mail), which may be carried out even in the absence of any trade union agreement, provided that the employee is given adequate information on how to use the tools and how checks may be carried out on their use (according to privacy law strictly related to the employment relationship).
Furthermore, based on case law, the employer can carry out so-called defensive controls (ie, actions carried out in the absence of the guarantees provided for in article 4, to protect the company and its assets from any unlawful conduct by employees). These “defensive controls” can be carried out if:
- they are intended to determine unlawful behaviour by the employee (ie, not simply to verify his or her working performance);
- there is a “well-founded suspicion” that an offence has been committed;
- they take place after the conduct complained of has been committed; and
- adequate precautions are nevertheless put in place to guarantee a proper balancing between the need to protect company assets and safeguarding the dignity and privacy of the employee.
Japan
Japan
- at Mori Hamada & Matsumoto
Since inspections of personal belongings may potentially undermine employees' fundamental human rights, they would not become lawful simply because they are conducted under employment regulations.
Inspections of personal belongings must be conducted uniformly among employees in the workplace based on reasonable grounds, in a generally reasonable manner and to a generally reasonable degree, and based on the work rules, etc.
When inspections of personal belongings are conducted under employment regulations, etc, employees must agree to the inspection except in special circumstances, such as the method or degree of the inspection being unreasonable.
On the other hand, an investigation of information stored on a company network system may constitute an infringement of the right to privacy. If there is a provision in the employment regulations regarding the use of the internet and monitoring, it is possible to investigate under such a provision. A Japanese court case on the illegality of reading e-mails in the absence of a monitoring provision stated that private use of e-mails also carries a certain right to privacy, but also stated that "considering the fact that the system is maintained and managed by the company, the protection of the employee's privacy can only be expected within a reasonable range according to the specific circumstances of the system," and that the act of reading e-mails was not illegal because the extent of private use of e-mails was beyond the limit, which was outside the reasonable range of socially accepted ideas. The court also ruled that the monitoring of the employee's abusive private use of e-mail, which was discovered in the course of an investigation of slanderous e-mails within the company, was not illegal because even if the monitoring was conducted without notice, there was suspicion of a violation of the duty of devotion to duty and corporate order. The court also stated that the investigation was necessary and that the scope of the investigation did not exceed its limit.
Netherlands
Netherlands
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
When conducting an internal investigation (which must have a legitimate purpose), the employer must act in accordance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. In line with these principles, the means of collecting and processing personal data during an internal investigation as well as the data that is searched, collected or processed, should be adequate, relevant and not excessive given the purposes for which the data is being collected or subsequently processed. These principles can be complied with by, for example, using specific search terms when searching electronic data, limiting the investigation’s scope (subject matter, period, geographic locations) and, in principle, excluding an employee's private data.
The employer is, in principle, allowed to access documents, emails and internet connection history saved on computers that were provided to the employees to perform their duties, provided the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity are taken into account. In other words, reading the employee's emails or searching electronic devices provided by the employer must serve a legitimate purpose (e.g. tracing suspected irregularities or abuse) and the manner of review or collecting and processing the data contained in such emails should be in accordance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.
The employer can ask the employee to hand over an employee's USB stick for an investigation. Depending on company policies and (individual or collective) employment agreements, an employee is, in principle, not obliged to comply with such a request. A refusal from an employee, when there is a strong indication that this USB stick contains information that is relevant to an investigation into possible irregularities, may be to the disadvantage of an employee, for example in a dismissal case.
The following factors, which derive from the Bărbulescu judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, are relevant to the question of whether an employee's e-mail or internet use can be monitored:
- whether the employee has been informed in advance of (the nature of) the possible monitoring of correspondence and other communications by the employer;
- the extent of the monitoring and the seriousness of the intrusion into the employee's privacy;
- whether the employer has put forward legitimate grounds for justifying the monitoring;
- whether a monitoring system using less intrusive methods and measures would have been possible;
- the consequences of the monitoring for the employee; and
- whether the employee has been afforded adequate safeguards, in particular in the case of intrusive forms of monitoring.
These requirements can sometimes create a barrier for employers, as seen in a ruling by the District Court Midden-Nederland (16 December 2021, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:6071) in which the employer had used information obtained from the employee's e-mail as the basis for a request for termination of the employment contract. In the proceedings, the employee argued that his employer did not have the authority to search his e-mail.
According to the District Court, it was unclear whether the employer had complied with the requirements of Bărbulescu regarding searching the employee's e-mail. The regulations submitted by the employer only described the processing of data flows within the organisation in general. Therefore, the District Court found that the employer did not have a (sufficient) e-mail and internet protocol and the employee was not properly informed that his employer could monitor him. In addition, according to the District Court, it was unclear what exactly prompted the employer to search the employee's e-mail, as the employer did not provide any insight into the nature and content of the investigation. As a result, the District Court was unable to determine whether the employer had legitimate grounds to search the employee's e-mail. On this basis, the District Court disregarded the (possibly) illegally obtained evidence and ruled against the employer's termination request.
Nigeria
Nigeria
- at Bloomfield LP
Yes, an employer can search the possessions or files of an employee as part of an investigation where the employee’s contract or handbook authorises such a search and there is a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
Philippines
Philippines
- at Villaraza & Angangco
Subject to the employees’ reasonable expectation of privacy, gathering physical evidence within the premises of the workplace and through company-issued property has been upheld to be legally permissible in pursuit of the employer’s right to conduct work-related investigations. The search, however, should be limited to the alleged acts complained of and must not be used as a fishing expedition to find incriminating information about the erring employee.
Poland
Poland
- at WKB Lawyers
- at WKB Lawyers
- at WKB Lawyers
It depends on whether the employer implemented rules of personal control at the workplace. If yes, such rules are applicable. If not, in our opinion if there is suspicion of a serious violation, it is possible to carry out an ad hoc inspection but its scope should be limited only to necessary activities and should not concern an employee’s private files or correspondence, so as not to infringe on personal rights. If there is an ad hoc inspection, an employee should be informed in advance, and it should take place in the presence of the employee or employee’s representative, observing the rules of fairness and equity.
Portugal
Portugal
- at Uría Menéndez - Proença de Carvalho
The employer is allowed to search an employee’s possessions or files, provided that they are work instruments or of a professional nature.
When performing these searches, employers should consider the specific provisions of the Data Protection Regulations as well as Resolution No. 1638/2013 of the Portuguese Data Protection Authority (CNPD), which contains rules on monitoring phone calls, e-mail and internet usage by employees. The CNPD understands that for the employer to access the employees’ professional data (e-mails, documents and other information stored on electronic devices), the latter should be present during the monitoring, to identify any information of a personal nature that should not be accessed by the employer (the employer must comply with these directions and should not access that email). In addition, review of the data should respect specific protocols to avoid potential access to personal data (eg, review of subject, recipients, data flow and type of files attached).
Body searches or the seizure of personal belongings or documents belonging to the employee are not permitted within the scope of a disciplinary procedure.
Singapore
Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann
The employer is not allowed to search employees’ personal possessions or files as part of an investigation without the employee’s consent. However, such consent may be explicitly provided for in the 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). The employer may, however, search the employees’ company email accounts and files if these are stored on the company’s internal systems or devices.
South Korea
South Korea
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
As discussed in question 7, it may be difficult for a company to search an employee’s personal possessions. The company may search and gather electronic data stored in work laptops or company servers, subject to legal requirements and restrictions (eg, obtaining consent).
The PIPA provides specific guidance on the requirements for obtaining consent. Under the PIPA, to collect or use an individual’s personal information, the information holder must be informed of and consent to:
- the purpose of the collection or use;
- the personal information that will be collected;
- the period of retention and use; and
- his or her right to refuse to provide consent and any disadvantages that may result from such refusal.
There are separate requirements for obtaining consent to provide an individual’s personal information to a third party. Also, consent must be obtained separately for the collection, use or provision of sensitive or unique identification information.
Under limited circumstances, personal information may be collected, used, or provided to third parties without obtaining the consent of the information holder. For instance, a company may collect and use personal information without obtaining consent where obtaining the information is necessary to achieve the company’s “legitimate interests”, which clearly exceed the information holder’s right to his or her personal information, and the collection and use are carried out within reasonable bounds. The term “legitimate interests” in this context is generally understood as a concept similar to “justifiable act” under the Criminal Code. The Korean Supreme Court has held that under exceptional circumstances such as the following, the company’s collection and review of employee data may constitute a “justifiable act” under the Criminal Code:
- the company had specific and reasonable suspicion that the employee had committed a crime and the company had an urgent need to verify the facts;
- the scope of the company’s review was limited to the suspected crime through the use of keywords, etc;
- the employee had signed an agreement stating that he or she would not use work computers in an unauthorised manner and that all work products would belong to the company; and
- the company’s review uncovered materials that could be used to verify whether the employee committed the alleged crime.
Spain
Spain
- at Uría Menéndez
- at Uría Menéndez
Please see question 7.
Sweden
Sweden
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
An employer can search an employee’s personal possessions (eg, handbag, pockets and locker) if the employer has a legitimate interest in a search. This could, for example, include a reasonable suspicion of theft of employer property. Furthermore, an employer may search, but not continually monitor, an employee’s computer and email provided that it is in accordance with GDPR requirements. For the processing to be lawful under the GDPR, the employer has to establish a purpose and a legal basis for the processing of personal data. Furthermore, data subjects must have received information on the legal basis for and purpose of the processing of personal data beforehand. If the data subjects have not received such information, the employer’s right to process their data is limited. However, if the employer has reasonable grounds to believe that trade secrets or similar has been copied and stolen, no such requirements would typically apply.
Investigations into an employee's possessions may, under certain circumstances, also be carried out by the Swedish authorities.
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
The basic rule is that the employer may not search private data during internal investigations.
If there is a strong suspicion of criminal conduct on the part of the employee and a sufficiently strong justification exists, a search of private data may be justified.[1] The factual connection with the employment relationship is given, for example, in the case of a criminal act committed during working hours or using workplace infrastructure.[2]
[1] Claudia Fritsche, Interne Untersuchungen in der Schweiz: Ein Handbuch für regulierte Finanzinstitute und andere Unternehmen, Zürich/St. Gallen 2013, p. 168.
[2] Claudia Fritsche, Interne Untersuchungen in der Schweiz: Ein Handbuch für regulierte Finanzinstitute und andere Unternehmen, Zürich/St. Gallen 2013, p. 168 et seq.
Thailand
Thailand
- at Chandler MHM
- at Chandler MHM
Electronic information created during employment would generally be owned by the employer and would be the employer’s assets. If an employee is given a computer or laptop to use for work, the employer has the right to log into that device and take any data that is stored therein, provided that the data does not contain sensitive information of that employee and PDPA requirements are met.
To avoid any potential issues regarding physical data such as documents on the employee’s desk, it is advisable to search those areas with the subject employee to show good faith. In practice, the employee normally agrees to search those areas with the employer, or allows the employer to search alone.
Turkey
Turkey
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
There is no explicit answer to this question. However, it is important to make a distinction between employees’ possessions and files that are strictly personal and employees’ possessions and files that are found on devices or files provided for company use. For the first category, the employer does not have the right to search employees’ possessions and files. For the latter category though, justifications need to be established, by observing the requirements explained in question 7. Furthermore, the employers must also ensure that employees are fully and explicitly informed in advance of the monitoring operations, either through a provision included in the employment agreement, or in a separate notice or employee policy, the receipt of which should be duly acknowledged by the employee.
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
It may sometimes be difficult to draw a clear distinction between the property of the employer and employees’ personal property, both physical and electronic, particularly where employees are increasingly working from home. Employers should ideally have a clear policy to delineate what is the employer’s property.
Employees typically have a reasonable expectation of privacy at work, although how far this extends will depend on the circumstances of each case and the employer’s policies.
When it comes to employees’ personal possessions, a search should only be conducted in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear, legitimate justification. The employer should always consider whether it is possible to establish the relevant facts through the collection of other evidence. Even if the employee’s contract specifies that it is permitted, employers would usually require explicit employee consent for the search to be lawful. The employee should be invited to be present during the search; if this is not feasible, another independent third party (such as a manager) should be present.
If the employee refuses to consent to a search of their personal possessions, their refusal should not be used to assume guilt; the investigator should explore why the employee has refused and seek to resolve their concerns if possible.
If the employer believes that a criminal offence has been committed it should consider involving the police, since they have wider powers to search individuals and their possessions.
United States
United States
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
As there is no unified data protection regime, privacy protections stem from a patchwork of federal and state privacy laws which impose limits on the extent to which an employer can collect information from its employees in connection with an internal investigation. Whether specific conduct violates an employee’s rights is a very fact-specific inquiry requiring the application of relevant state laws and a regulatory regime.
In most circumstances, an employer is free to conduct searches of its workplace and computer systems in the course of investigating potential wrongdoing. Such searches are generally not protected by personal privacy laws because workspaces, computer systems and company-issued electronic devices are often considered company property. Many companies explicitly address this in written corporate policies and employment agreements. Employees who use their own electronic devices for work should be aware that work-related data stored on those devices is generally considered to belong to the employer (as a matter of best practice, employers should generally prohibit or at least advise employees against using personal devices for work and to maintain separate work devices, where possible).
These broad investigatory powers notwithstanding, the ability of an employer to conduct searches in furtherance of an internal investigation is not unlimited. For example, if an employer seeks to obtain or review work-related data from an employee’s personal device, the employer must be careful to exclude any personal data. Certain states also prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to disclose passwords or other credentials to his or her personal email and social networking accounts, but permit an employer to require employees to share the content of personal online accounts as necessary during an interview while investigating employee misconduct.
Vietnam
Vietnam
- at Le & Tran Law Corporation
- at Le & Tran Law Corporation
As part of an investigation, an employer may search the objects or files that are part of the company’s property (eg, company or employers’ laptops or phones for business purposes and emails or messages stored on the company’s servers) without prior notice and without the need of the consent of the employee. However, the employer has no right to search an employee’s personal possessions without consent.
To further avoid arguments or conflicts as to the right of ownership of a particular object or property, employers may specify in their internal policies, labour contracts, and handover documents what is to be regarded as the company’s assets and subject to a search in a workplace investigation.
11. What information must the employee under investigation be given about the allegations against them?
11. What information must the employee under investigation be given about the allegations against them?
Australia
Australia
- at People + Culture Strategies
- at People + Culture Strategies
- at People + Culture Strategies
To ensure procedural fairness, the allegations must be put to the respondent in writing in advance of the investigation interview. The allegations must be specific, but the respondent does not need to be provided with a copy of the original complaint. The respondent should also be informed that if the allegations are substantiated they may result in disciplinary action up to and including the termination of the employee’s employment.
Austria
Austria
- at GERLACH
- at GERLACH Rechtsanwälte
The purpose of internal investigations would be jeopardised by fully informing a suspected employee beforehand, as it would allow him or her to hide or destroy possible evidence, plan his testimony or coordinate with other employees.
There is no legal requirement to inform the employee of the allegations or suspicions.
Belgium
Belgium
- at Van Olmen & Wynant
In general, the employee should be informed that there is an ongoing investigation (unless this could jeopardise the investigation, in which case disclosure could be postponed until this is no longer the situation). Next, before imposing measures or sanctions, the employee should be allowed to be heard or to give his or her version of the facts. Of course, the employee can only do this if he or she is aware of the facts being investigated. It is not necessary to give the employee a full insight into the investigation, only the necessary facts that allow him or her to offer a defence are sufficient.
Brazil
Brazil
- at CGM
- at CGM
There is no obligation to inform an employee under investigation that this is the case, and it should not happen automatically.
While some policies require that the investigated employee be informed about the allegations against them at the beginning of the investigation, from a local perspective it is recommended that the accused employee be notified about the existence of the allegations if, after a reasonable review, there are elements that suggest that the accusation may be material.
In this context, the employee should be informed about the accusation and be allowed to confirm, deny, provide further context or justify each reported or identified event; offer evidence; and indicate persons or sources of information that could corroborate his or her defence. Information about the accusation must be focused on facts rather than on how the company obtained the information.
If the accusation is found to be groundless after initial review, involving the accused employee at the beginning of the process may have triggered unjust and unnecessary stress and a disruption in the employment relationship that may not be satisfactorily repaired by a determination that the accusation was void. This may result in a legal liability for the company or HR issues that could otherwise have been avoided.
China
China
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
Although there are no explicit provisions of law or policy requiring employers to provide specific information of allegations to investigated employees, in practice, at the early stage of investigation, in order to avoid alerting the investigated employee and reduce the possibility that the investigated employee may destroy the relevant evidence, the employer usually will not disclose the information of allegations to the investigated employee at the beginning of investigation. At the later stage of an investigation, when the employer has already obtained main evidence, the employer usually will properly disclose to the investigated employee the allegations that are clearly known by the employer and have sufficient evidence, and listen to the counterparty's opinions or argument, for the purpose of obtaining more information or getting the employee's confession.
Finland
Finland
- at Roschier
- at Roschier
The process must be transparent and impartial, and therefore all the information that may influence the conclusions made during the investigation should be shared with the employee.
France
France
- at Bredin Prat
- at Bredin Prat
According to the French data protection authority, the employee under investigation must be informed of the name of the person in charge of the investigation, the alleged facts that have led to the whistleblowing alert and their rights to access and rectify data collected about them. This information must be given as soon as the data collection starts, before the interviews, as per GDPR principles.
Germany
Germany
- at Hengeler Mueller
- at Hengeler Mueller
- at Hengeler Mueller
In principle, the employer does not have to inform the employees about the investigation. Furthermore, there is no obligation to inform the "suspect" about the specific content of the workplace investigation itself and the allegations against him.
However, if personal data relating to the employee is collected and reviewed, the employee must be informed under German data protection principles (see question 7).
If the employer considers issuing a notice of termination based on the suspicion of wrongdoing, the employee must be allowed to comment on the allegations against him before receiving the termination notice. This requires that the employee be properly informed about the allegations and evidence against him. However, until the time of such a hearing, which usually follows the workplace investigation, there is no obligation on the part of the employer to inform the employee concerned about ongoing investigations.
Greece
Greece
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
As a matter of general principle, employees under investigation must have access to the necessary information to be able to defend themselves, in the context of their fundamental right to a fair trial and hearing.
Moreover, from a data protection perspective, they may be entitled to access their personal data in the respective files.
The above rights must be balanced with confidentiality and the need to safeguard the completion of the investigation and to protect the complainant from retaliation.
According to L.4990/2022, all data and information as well as the identity of the complainant are confidential, and any disclosure is only permitted where required by the EU or national legislation or during court proceedings, and only if it is necessary for the protection of the defence rights of the employee under investigation. The section of L.4808/2021 for the elimination of workplace violence and harassment does not regulate this specifically but provides a general obligation for confidentiality.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
An employer’s internal policies or the employment contract may provide that an employee under investigation should be given certain information concerning the allegations raised against him or her. Such policies or terms should be followed and failure to do so may result in a claim for breach of contract or constructive dismissal by the employee. Even where there are no express provisions, the employer still owes an implied obligation of trust and confidence towards the employee at common law, which requires the employer not to, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between itself and the employee.[1] In the context of an internal investigation, the implied duty would require the employer to conduct the investigation and reach its findings reasonably and rationally following the evidence available and in good faith. This would normally require that sufficient information about the allegations made against the employee be provided to him or her such that he or she has the opportunity to properly respond to the allegations before any disciplinary action is taken or any decision about his or her employment is made.
[1] Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) [1998] AC 20.
India
India
- at Trilegal
- at Trilegal
- at Trilegal
As mentioned earlier, workplace investigations are normally a precursor to the actual disciplinary process against an employee. If the individual is being suspended during the investigation, the employer is only expected to inform the individual that they are being suspended on account of an ongoing investigation along with the broad nature of allegations or concerns, and does not need to disclose specific details about the allegations until the appropriate time. Further details may be provided at the investigation stage itself when the employee may be interviewed, or at the subsequent disciplinary inquiry.
Where a disciplinary process is necessary and initiated (after the investigation), the employee will have to be given a charge sheet or notice setting out the allegations against the individual in detail and be provided with an opportunity to submit an explanation.
In sexual harassment investigations, the SH Act mandatorily requires the IC to submit a copy of the complaint to the accused. Further, the accused should be informed of the requirement to file his or her reply to the complaint along with a list of supporting documents, evidence, names and addresses of witnesses, etc, and the timelines for submitting his response in defence.
Ireland
Ireland
- at Ogier
- at Ogier
Under the fair procedures outlined above, details of the allegations or complaints against the employee should be put to them to enable them to fully respond to the allegations raised. The employee should also be provided with any relevant policies pertaining to the allegations against them, along with all documentary evidence of the allegations and the specific terms of reference that define the scope of the investigation. The employee should also be informed of their right to be represented, see question 15.
Italy
Italy
- at BonelliErede
- at BonelliErede
From an employment law perspective, our legal system does not provide a specific duty for an employer to inform employees that a workplace investigation is in progress.
In addition, disclosing such information could put at risk the outcome of the workplace investigation (eg, destruction of evidence), and it would therefore be arguable that no information should be provided to employees.
On the other hand, if, upon completion of the investigation, the employer decides to bring disciplinary action against the employee, then the latter must be informed of the complaints with a letter stating the procedure (see questions 3 and 12).
Japan
Japan
- at Mori Hamada & Matsumoto
There are no specific legal stipulations or requirements regarding information, etc, that must be provided to employees who are the subject of an investigation.
Netherlands
Netherlands
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
An implicated person is typically provided with a summary description of the scope of the investigation and, hence, the allegations against such an employee (if any). This is usually done in the interview invite sent to the relevant interviewee, which also provides an opportunity to prepare for an interview and (if relevant) seek legal advice.
Nigeria
Nigeria
- at Bloomfield LP
An employee must be given the full details of the allegations against him or her to enable the employee to make adequate representations against the complaints made against him or her.
Philippines
Philippines
- at Villaraza & Angangco
During the fact-finding stage of the investigation, the employees under investigation are not generally entitled to information concerning the conduct of the investigation. It is the prerogative of management to involve the employee under investigation during the fact-finding stage. When, however, the employer determines that an administrative disciplinary process must proceed, the employee’s right to due process attaches. As such, due process includes the right to be informed of the grounds relied upon by the employer and the opportunity to be heard. The first notice or notice to explain should specifically inform the employee of the charge against him or her.
Poland
Poland
- at WKB Lawyers
- at WKB Lawyers
- at WKB Lawyers
There is no specific mandatory information that should be given to an employee who is the subject of an internal investigation. However, it is common practice that he or she must know what the allegations against them are, on what grounds these allegations are formulated and be given a right to discuss these allegations and the evidence or grounds for these allegations.
Portugal
Portugal
- at Uría Menéndez - Proença de Carvalho
If, before taking disciplinary action, the employer decides to open a preliminary investigation phase, the employee does not have to be informed.
Only when the preliminary investigation leads to a formal accusation will the employee be entitled to know that enquiries were carried out and the source of the facts (eg, witnesses, documents).
However, if an employer does not need to open a formal preliminary investigation phase, it only has to serve the accusation notice to the employee.
As a rule, employees will only know that they are being investigated if they are suspended or when they are notified of the accusation.
Singapore
Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann
There is no specific list of information about the allegations against the employee under investigation that must be provided to the employee under investigation. However, the information provided to the employee must be sufficiently clear and specific so that the employee understands the case being made against him or her and can respond to it. The employee should also be made aware of the evidence against him or her and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
South Korea
South Korea
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
There is no requirement to notify an employee under investigation concerning the allegations against him or her when requesting cooperation with a workplace investigation (eg, requesting the employee’s consent to review electronic data, or requesting an interview).
However, the company may strategically consider explaining the general purpose of the investigation before requesting consent to review electronic data or when requesting an interview. This may help increase the likelihood of cooperation and also reduce the risk of the employee raising objections to the company’s findings from the investigation by saying he or she was not properly informed of the purpose of the investigation, or that the investigation was conducted in a coercive manner.
Spain
Spain
- at Uría Menéndez
- at Uría Menéndez
It is not necessary to inform an investigated employee about an enquiry or of the allegations made against him or her. The obligation to disclose would only arise when:
- interviewing the employee would be the least intrusive means to investigate the facts; or
- if disciplinary measures are implemented as a result of the investigation. Since employees are entitled to challenge all disciplinary measures against them, they could request a court of law to disclose all the findings of the investigation, to assess if these findings could be useful to challenge the disciplinary measure.
Sweden
Sweden
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
According to article 14 of the GDPR, no information must be provided. The exemption in article 14.5(b) applies to the extent the obligation to provide such information is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the objectives of the processing of the personal data of the employee under investigation (ie, to diligently investigate the suspected irregularity).
If the Swedish Whistleblowing Act applies, information about where the personal data processed originates from may not be provided under article 14 of the GDPR, as the personal data must remain confidential subject to obligations under the Swedish Whistleblowing Act.
In addition to the above, an investigation should, to the extent possible and suitable, be characterised by the principles in ECHR (particularly articles 6 and 8). The employee under investigation should, among other things, be presented with sufficient information to safeguard his or her interests and be allowed to respond to the allegations. The investigation must also be compliant with the work environment responsibilities that the employer has concerning the involved parties (see questions 17 and 20).
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
As a result of the employer's duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations), employees under investigation have certain procedural rights. These include, in principle, the right of the accused to be heard. In this context, the accused has the right to be informed at the beginning of the questioning about the subject of the investigation and at least the main allegations and they must be allowed to share their view and provide exculpatory evidence.[1] The employer, on the other hand, is not obliged to provide the employee with existing evidence, documents, etc, before the start of the questioning.[2]
Covert investigations in which employees are involved in informal or even private conversations to induce them to provide statements are not compatible with the data-processing principles of good faith and the requirement of recognisability, according to article 4 of the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection.[3]
Also, rights to information arise from the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection. In principle, the right to information (article 8, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection) is linked to a corresponding request for information by the concerned person and the existence of data collection within the meaning of article 3 (lit. g), Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection. Insofar as the documents from the internal investigation recognisably relate to a specific person, there is in principle a right to information concerning these documents. Subject to certain conditions, the right to information may be denied, restricted or postponed by law (article 9 paragraph 1, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). For example, such documents and reports may also affect the confidentiality and protection interests of third parties, such as other employees. Based on the employer's duty of care (article 328, Swiss Code of Obligations), the employer is required to protect them by taking appropriate measures (eg, by making appropriate redactions before handing out copies of the respective documents (article 9 paragraph 1 (lit. b), Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection)).[4] Furthermore, the employer may refuse, restrict or defer the provision of information where the company’s interests override the employee’s, and not disclose personal data to third parties (article 9 paragraph 4, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). The right to information is also not subject to the statute of limitations, and individuals may waive their right to information in advance (article 8 paragraph 6, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection). If there are corresponding requests, the employer must generally grant access, or provide a substantiated decision on the restriction of the right of access, within 30 days (article 8 paragraph 5, Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection and article 1 paragraph 4, Ordinance to the Federal Act on Data Protection).
[1] Roger Rudolph, Interne Untersuchungen: Spannungsfelder aus arbeitsrechtlicher Sicht, SJZ 114/2018, p. 390.
[2] Roger Rudolph, Interne Untersuchungen: Spannungsfelder aus arbeitsrechtlicher Sicht, SJZ 114/2018, p. 390.
[3] Roger Rudolph, Interne Untersuchungen: Spannungsfelder aus arbeitsrechtlicher Sicht, SJZ 114/2018, p. 390.
[4] Claudia Götz Staehelin, Unternehmensinterne Untersuchungen, 2019, p. 37.
Thailand
Thailand
- at Chandler MHM
- at Chandler MHM
The subject employee(s) should be informed of the details of the allegations, such as the details of wrongdoing or violations, made against them. This creates a fair opportunity for them to clarify themselves and defend against such allegations properly. Also, if there is any evidence that needs clarification from the employee, it should be shown to the employee.
Turkey
Turkey
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
Informing the employee under investigation on the subject, purpose and possible consequences of the investigation need to be evaluated by the investigation team before the interview. As a general principle, the interviewer is expected to share the information he obtained on the case with the employee, and ask for confirmation or clarification on these matters. The employee under investigation may be subject to an interview to gain information or as a confrontation if there is concrete evidence. If the evidence in hand is not based on concrete and material grounds, it would be more appropriate not to lead the interview to a confession, but inform the employee of the possible allegations. However, if the available evidence is based on concrete and material grounds, the interviewer may confront the interviewee by sharing the information that was gathered during the investigation in an attempt to obtain a confession.
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
The employee must be able to effectively challenge the allegations against them. They should be given the terms of reference for the investigation, and any relevant documentary evidence, including copies of witness statements.
United States
United States
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
The investigator must disclose to the employee under investigation the purpose of the investigation and, where the investigator is in-house or outside counsel, he or she should disclose that the company is the client.
Vietnam
Vietnam
- at Le & Tran Law Corporation
- at Le & Tran Law Corporation
There is no legal requirement as to what particular information should be stated in the allegations; however, such information must be provided to the employee under investigation. The information provided by the employer to the employee must be sufficiently clear and specific so that the latter understands the case or alleged issues against him or her and can respond to it.
27. What legal exposure could the employer face for errors during the investigation?
27. What legal exposure could the employer face for errors during the investigation?
Australia
Australia
- at People + Culture Strategies
- at People + Culture Strategies
- at People + Culture Strategies
It is important for employers to conduct procedurally fair investigations that result in a fair outcome. Failure to do so may expose the employer to various claims by an employee. The most common type of claim following an investigation is an unfair dismissal claim. If a respondent’s employment is terminated because of an investigation, they may be eligible to bring an unfair dismissal claim in the FWC alleging their dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
An employee may also bring a bullying, discrimination or general protections claim. These claims may be made even where the investigation does not result in the employee’s dismissal.
If an employer has departed from the procedures set out in their policies, or they have not followed the terms of an employee’s employment contract or another applicable industrial instrument then an employee may bring a claim for breach of contract.
Australia has also recently introduced the “Respect@Work” legislation which places a positive obligation on employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation, as far as possible. Accordingly, an employer who is not perceived to have taken a proactive and fair approach to these workplace issues faces significant legal exposure.
Failure to conduct an investigation properly (or a failure to conduct an investigation in circumstances where it is needed) can also cause significant reputational and financial risk.
Austria
Austria
- at GERLACH
- at GERLACH Rechtsanwälte
This relates to the severity of the error. Data protection violations can lead to fines by the data protection authority or claims for damages. If consequences under labour law, such as dismissal, have taken place due to erroneous investigations or incorrect results, the employee concerned can assert claims under labour law or seek damages.
Furthermore, there may be consequences under criminal law. This is particularly the case if documents have been falsified in the course of the investigation. It is, therefore, crucial that employers exercise diligence and due process in internal investigations. Investigations must be conducted transparently and lawfully.
Belgium
Belgium
- at Van Olmen & Wynant
In general, abusive investigations could lead to a legal claim regarding the abuse of rights. During an investigation, an employer should be guided by principles of due diligence and not take disproportionate action. If the investigation causes unnecessary damage, involved employees could file for compensation (eg, before the labour court). Next, the employer is also responsible for following the mandatory procedure for official complaints regarding sexual harassment, bullying and violence at work and investigations of whistleblower reports. In the first case, an employer who does not follow the procedure or obstructs the procedure can be liable for penal or administrative fines (maximum 8,000 euro) or, if the employer has not taken necessary measures to mitigate the risks for the employee and the employee suffers damage to their health, they may be liable for a fine of a maximum of 48,000 euro and imprisonment for between six months and three years. In the second case (whistleblower procedure), if an employer did not follow or has obstructed the procedure, they can be fined up to 5% of the annual revenue of the preceding year.
If the complaints involve allegations of sexual harassment, violence or bullying at work, the employer might risk an investigation of the inspection on supervision and well-being at work. If the prevention advisor finds out, before giving his advice, that the employer did not take any suitable protective measures after they were recommended, the prevention advisor is obliged to call an inspection on supervision and well-being at work.
Brazil
Brazil
- at CGM
- at CGM
The employer’s legal exposure resulting from errors during the investigation depends on the error and the victim or victims affected. It may range from paying damages to a witness who was harassed because the company did not prevent retaliation from occurring; to the reversal of a termination for cause if a court determines that the evidence collected during the investigation did not meet the legal threshold to uphold it; to indemnification for a violation of privacy; or criminal prosecution because of unauthorised access to private communications.
China
China
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
It is inevitable that the investigation involves the employee's personal information, and once the investigation is mishandled, the employer may face the following legal risks:
Civil liability: Both the Civil Code of the PRC and the Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC, clearly provide the civil liability for infringement of privacy and illegal processing of personal information. Therefore, the investigated employee or relevant organizations such as the people's procuratorate have the right to claim or file a public interest lawsuit on the employer's improper collection of evidence, requiring the employer to bear the liability for infringement. In addition, the evidence obtained by an employer through infringing the employee's privacy and personal information rights and interests, in violation of the law, cannot be used as the valid evidence for the employer's unilateral termination of the employment contract or requiring the employee to compensate for losses.
Administrative liability: Article 66 of the Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC provides that, where personal information is processed in violation of regulations, administrative penalties imposed by the department performing duties of personal information protection may be up to revoking the business license, and the person directly in charge and other directly liable persons may be fined up to one million yuan and prohibited from practicing within a time limit. Meanwhile, Article 67 of the Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC provides that relevant illegal acts shall be recorded in the employer's credit files and disclosed to the public.
Criminal liability: if an employer illegally sells or provides to others the personal information obtained during the internal investigation, and the circumstance is serious enough, the judicial authority has the right to hold the employer, the managers directly in charge and other directly liable persons criminally liable in accordance with the crime of "infringement of citizens' personal information" under Article 253A of the Criminal Law of the PRC.
It should be noted that a compliance investigation may also involve the employer's communication and investigation reporting with overseas authorities, or overseas institutions' direct access to information from the employer's domestic systems. If the employer conducts cross-border transmission of such personal information, it shall also meet one of the conditions set out in Article 38 of the Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC (i.e. passing the security assessment organized by the national cyberspace administration authority, obtaining certification from a professional institution concerning the protection of personal information or entering into a standard contract with an overseas recipient). Violations of the above provisions may result in civil, administrative and even criminal liability.
Finland
Finland
- at Roschier
- at Roschier
There are no regulations regarding the actual investigation process. Therefore, the employer cannot be accused of procedural errors as such. However, once the matter has been adequately investigated, the employer must decide whether or not misconduct has taken place. If the employer considers that misconduct has taken place, the employer must take adequate measures for remedying the situation. Failure to adequately conduct the investigation could result in criminal sanctions being imposed on the employer as an organisation or the employer’s representative, or damages.
France
France
- at Bredin Prat
- at Bredin Prat
Within the context of an investigation following a whistleblower alert, any violation of the confidentiality obligation is punishable by two years’ imprisonment and a €30,000 fine.
If the employer fails to comply with its obligation to protect its employees’ safety, the employer will be liable for damages resulting from any failings during the investigation (eg, if sexual harassment is reported and no action is taken by the employer)
Germany
Germany
- at Hengeler Mueller
- at Hengeler Mueller
- at Hengeler Mueller
Different consequences may result from mistakes made by the employer (or its advisors) in the course of the workplace investigation. For example, if the employer has violated the data protection provisions of the DSGVO or BDSG, this may result in fines. This may also result in claims for damages by the employee. The employee may also have a claim for damages if it turns out that the suspicion of misconduct on the part of the employee is not confirmed and the employer has arbitrarily conducted workplace investigations without sufficient cause.
Greece
Greece
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
The employee can contest the decisions of disciplinary councils before the courts and request their annulment.
Moreover, in the framework of L.4990/2022, a monetary penalty and prison sentence (to be defined by an implementing Ministerial Decision) may be imposed on any person violating confidentiality obligations concerning the identity and personal data of employees or third parties included in the investigation procedure, while monetary penalties are also provided for legal entities[15].
Moreover, administrative fines may also be imposed if the employer does not comply with the legal requirements concerning the prevention of violence and harassment in the workplace.
Furthermore, the employee under investigation may initiate proceedings before the courts under tort law, by claiming compensation for moral damages suffered if the company did not comply with its confidentiality obligations after the incident (eg, due to the spread of rumours in the workplace). This may also be linked with criminal law proceedings against the persons responsible for dealing with the investigation (and not against the legal person, since under Greek law there is no criminal liability for legal persons).
On the other hand, the employer may also be exposed to liability vis-à-vis the complainant, witnesses or facilitators, for breach of confidentiality or other obligations prescribed in the respective legal provisions, or if there are retaliation measures.
[15] L.4990/2022 art.23 par.1
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
If the employer failed to comply with a requirement that is expressly stipulated in the employment contract or employee handbook (such as a procedural requirement to hold a disciplinary hearing or to provide certain information to the employee), the employer could be liable for breaching an express term in the employment contract.
Even where the employment contract does not contain express provisions for the conduct of an internal investigation, the employer is under an implied obligation of trust and confidence under common law (as discussed in question 11), which requires it to conduct the investigation and reach its findings reasonably and rationally in accordance with the evidence available and in good faith.[1] If the employer reached a decision that no reasonable employer would have reached, the conduct of the investigation may be in breach of the employer’s implied obligation of trust and confidence.
If the error in the investigation has led to a termination of employment (whether by way of summary dismissal or termination by notice), the employee may be able to bring a statutory claim for wrongful dismissal, unlawful dismissal or dismissal without a valid reason (as applicable).[2] If such a claim is successful, in addition to ordering the employer to pay monetary compensation, the court or tribunal may also make a reinstatement order (an order that the employee shall be treated as if he had not been dismissed) or re-engagement order (an order that the employee shall be re-engaged in employment on terms comparable to his or her original terms of employment) for the affected employee.
The employer may also be liable for unlawful discrimination under Hong Kong law if the investigation has been conducted in a discriminatory manner or the outcome of the investigation reflects differential and less favourable treatment of the employee concerned based on grounds of sex, marital status, disability, family status or race.
India
India
- at Trilegal
- at Trilegal
- at Trilegal
The risk an employer may face would be quite subjective. For example, if an individual is suspended without pay, the individual may attempt to argue that the entire investigation should be set aside, as non-payment of salary affects an individual’s ability to properly represent themselves. Material errors in disciplinary proceedings or not adhering to the rules of natural justice may result in disciplinary action being set aside, and potentially also orders for reinstatement of the employee with back pay (if the individual is protected by local labour laws) if the dismissal is found to be unfair or disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
In addition to the above risks, in SH matters, if the IC constitution is incorrect or there are allegations of bias against a committee member, the whole investigation may be set aside and the organisation ordered to conduct a fresh inquiry through a properly constituted committee.
Ireland
Ireland
- at Ogier
- at Ogier
A failure to follow fair procedures in the investigation can have significant consequences.
Although the exception rather than the rule, an employee could challenge the investigation through injunctive proceedings if there is a breach of fair procedures. Such action would be taken before the High Court. Injunction proceedings may be brought while the investigation is ongoing, or just before its conclusion to prevent publication of a report making specific findings against an employee. A successful injunction may curtail any subsequent attempt to investigate the matter as allegations of penalisation, prejudice and delay may arise.
Errors during the investigation can also give rise to a complaint of constructive dismissal, with allegations that flaws in the procedure have fundamentally breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
A flawed investigation can also undermine any disciplinary process and sanction that is imposed as a result. This commonly occurs when an employee has been dismissed following a disciplinary process launched on foot of the investigation. While dismissal may be an appropriate sanction, the dismissal can still be found to be unfair if there is a failure to follow fair procedures. An employee may challenge their dismissal before the WRC and the employer should be alive to not only an unfair dismissal complaint, but allegations of discrimination and penalisation.
Overall, to carry out a successful workplace investigation, an employer should consider taking advice at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the investigation can withstand challenges.
Italy
Italy
- at BonelliErede
- at BonelliErede
It depends on the kind of error or breach. For example:
- a breach of privacy laws (eg, acquiring data from working instruments in lack of due requirements) would lead to the application of privacy law sanctions (including monetary fines); and
- breach of provisions regarding “remote” control of employees would lead to criminal sanctions and to the inadmissibility, for disciplinary purposes, of the data collected (and thus potentially to the unlawfulness of a dismissal based on such data).
Furthermore, if the employee has suffered damages as a result of the employer’s errors or breaches (and can specifically prove such damages and their amount), the employer may be held liable in court.
Japan
Japan
- at Mori Hamada & Matsumoto
If the company deviates from appropriate social rules in its investigative methods and means, it will be liable for tortious behaviour. If disciplinary action or dismissal is taken based on erroneous investigation results, the validity of such action or dismissal will be denied, the employee will be able to claim for back wages, and, in some cases, claim for compensation.
Netherlands
Netherlands
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
The employee can request compensation for violation of the right to a fair hearing or reputational damage. If the employee is suspended during the investigation, , the employee can request the court to order the employer to allow them to resume their work and request rehabilitation.
In termination proceedings (or after the termination of the employment agreement by the employer), the employee can claim an equitable compensation from the employer if the employer has shown serious culpable behaviour. Such compensation, if granted, is usually based on loss of income by the employee due to the behaviour of the employer.
Nigeria
Nigeria
- at Bloomfield LP
- Violation of Fundamental Rights of the Employee
- Breach of Contract of Employment or wrongful termination
Philippines
Philippines
- at Villaraza & Angangco
An employer may be liable for illegal termination if a dismissal is made based on wrong information collected during the investigation. Thus, the data and information gathered during the investigation stage must be correct and accurate. Further, investigations should be conducted in a manner that is fair and reasonable to the employee under investigation. Otherwise, the employee may treat the investigation as harassment on the part of the employer, which may subject the employer to a potential lawsuit.
Poland
Poland
- at WKB Lawyers
- at WKB Lawyers
- at WKB Lawyers
If any untrue allegations were made by an employer against an employee without checking them beforehand, there is a risk that such an employee would claim damages eg, for infringement of personal rights or even filing a private indictment for defamation or outrage.
Certainly, an employer must be aware that one must never behave in a way that, for example, in the employee's opinion, could constitute a form of blackmailing or deprivation of liberty. A problem may also arise when accessing the employee's correspondence, especially when access is made to documents or private correspondence. The Draft Law provides for several criminal offences related to, for example, preventing reporting, using retaliatory measures against a whistleblower or disclosing personal data of a whistleblower).
Portugal
Portugal
- at Uría Menéndez - Proença de Carvalho
If the disciplinary procedure recommends an employee's dismissal
Should a company dismiss an employee that has breached legal requirements, the latter may take action against the company within 60 days of the date of termination of their employment agreement.
If this action results in a ruling of unfair dismissal, the employee will be entitled:
- to receive all the payments they should normally have earned (back pay, including salary, holidays, legal subsidies, etc), from the month preceding the commencement of the lawsuit and until the final ruling of the court, minus any amounts they may have received during the same period and they would otherwise not have received; and
- to be reinstated in their former position or at the employee’s choice, to receive an indemnity that the court will calculate as between 15 and 45 days of base salary (and service bonuses) for each full year of service or fraction thereof, with a minimum limit of three months’ compensation.
This graduation will depend on the amount of the base salary (the lower the base salary, the higher the indemnity) and the severity of the company’s conduct. Additionally, the employee is entitled to claim an indemnity for further damages.
There are, however, two exceptions to the above: the first relates to high-ranking employees (ie employees carrying out management duties); the second refers to micro-companies (ie, a company that registered an average number of employees in the preceding calendar year below 10). In these two cases, the employer may oppose the employee’s option for reinstatement, arguing that it would be gravely harmful to the company's activity. From a practical perspective, opposition to reinstatement is not commonly decided by the courts.
Finally, should the court rule that the grounds for dismissal were valid, but the investigation was found to have been irregular, the dismissal will be deemed valid, but the employee will still be entitled to an indemnity of 7.5 to 22.5 days of base salary (plus service bonuses, if any) per year of service.
If the disciplinary procedure does not recommend dismissal, but the application of a conservatory sanction
In this event, the employee can challenge the application of the sanction through the filing of a lawsuit against the company. Although the law is not entirely clear, there are court rulings stating that the employee has one year to bring a lawsuit, but others consider that the statute of limitation to challenge a conservatory disciplinary sanction is also one year from the termination of the employment agreement when a pecuniary penalty or suspension was applied to the employee.
Moreover, according to article 331(3) of the Portuguese Labour Code, the employer who applies an unjustified conservatory penalty should compensate the worker under the terms set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of said article. The imposition of an abusive penalty is also considered a very serious administrative offence as per article 331(7). Please note that the Portuguese Labour Code considers a penalty to be unjustified if its imposition is motivated by the following:
- the employee lawfully complaining about their labour conditions;
- the employee lawfully disobeying unlawful orders from a superior;
- the employee being a member of any employee representative structure or having been a candidate for such a position; and
- the employee exercising or invoking their rights and guarantees.
Furthermore, any penalty imposed within six months of any instance listed above (or within one year if the invoked rights are related to equality and non-discrimination) is presumed to be abusive.
Singapore
Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann
The employer may be exposed to legal action for a failure to properly conduct the investigation, including having such portions of the investigation set aside or held to be void by the courts, and be made to pay damages to the affected employee; or face investigation and administrative penalties by regulatory authorities such as the MOM.
In addition, after the Workplace Fairness Legislation comes into force, breach of its requirements may also expose the employer or culpable persons to potential statutory penalties. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness recommended, among other things, for the Workplace Fairness Legislation to provide for a range of penalties including corrective orders, work pass curtailment and financial penalties against employers or culpable persons, depending on the severity of the breach. It is thus expected that employers or culpable persons may be exposed to potential statutory penalties if the requirements of the Workplace Fairness Legislation are not complied with.
South Korea
South Korea
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
As mentioned in question 19, employees may potentially raise claims, such as that the company violated data privacy laws in reviewing employee data, committed defamation, coerced the employee to comply with the investigation, and that witnesses or the company committed defamation in violation of the Criminal Code or disciplined the employee without just cause.
Spain
Spain
- at Uría Menéndez
- at Uría Menéndez
Errors during an investigation are normally linked to the breach of the employees’ privacy or their personal data rights (see question 1). Breaching these rights might expose employers to:
- Fines from the Labour Inspectorate and the Spanish Data Protection Authority.
- A court awarding damages to the employee.
- Any disciplinary measures adopted by the company as a result of the investigation could be considered null and void.
- The evidenced obtained during the investigation being disregarded by a court.
- In some very serious cases, criminal liability might arise for the individuals who conducted the investigation and breached the employees’ rights.
Sweden
Sweden
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
Errors resulting in terminations can be unlawful and, if they lead to employees terminating their employment as a result of the employer’s missteps, could be seen as constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal is generally equivalent to an unlawful dismissal. Unlawful terminations generally result in an obligation to pay financial and general damages to the affected employees.
Failure to fulfil the obligations under the Swedish Discrimination Act may lead to an obligation to pay financial and general damages.
If an employer does not fulfil its obligations according to work environment legislation, there is a risk that the Swedish Work Environment Authority will issue injunctions or prohibitions against the employer. If an employer omits to meet its work environment related obligations, and that in turn results in a work related accident, e.g. self-harm in connection with an internal investigation, it may also, in a worst case scenario, lead to criminal liability.
The Swedish Work Environment Authority is also responsible for monitoring compliance with the provisions of the Swedish Whistleblowing Act. The Swedish Work Environment Authority may, if necessary to ensure compliance with the Swedish Whistleblowing Act, order an operator to comply with the obligations and requirements of the Swedish Whistleblowing Act. Employers violating the Swedish Whistleblowing Act may also be liable to pay damages to the affected employees.
If personal data is processed in a way that violates the GDPR, the authorised supervisory authority may issue warnings or reprimands to the data controller, order the controller to comply with the GDPR, impose a ban on processing, or impose an administrative fine on the controller. Companies violating the GDPR may also be liable to pay damages to data subjects.
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
As there are no specific regulations for internal investigations, the usual legal framework within which the employer must act towards the employee derives from general rules such as the employer's duty of care, the employee's duty of loyalty and the employee's data protection rights.
But, for example, unwarranted surveillance could conceivably result in criminal liability (article 179 et seq, Swiss Criminal Code) for violations of the employee's privacy. Furthermore, errors made by the employer could have an impact on any later criminal proceedings (eg, in the form of prohibitions on the use of evidence).[1]
Evidence obtained unlawfully may only be used in civil proceedings if there is an overriding interest in establishing the truth (article 152 paragraph 2, Swiss Civil Procedure Code). Consequently, in each case, a balance must be struck between the individual’s interest in not using the evidence and in establishing the truth.[2] The question of the admissibility of evidence based on an unlawful invasion of privacy is a sensitive one – admissibility in this case is likely to be accepted only with restraint.[3] Since the parties in civil proceedings do not have any means of coercion at their disposal, it is not necessary, in contrast to criminal proceedings, to examine whether the evidence could also have been obtained by legal means.[4]
Unlawful action by the employer may also have consequences on future criminal proceedings: The prohibitions on exploitation (article 140 et seq, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code) apply a priori only to evidence obtained directly from public authorities. Evidence obtained unlawfully by private persons (ie, the employer) may also be used if it could have been lawfully obtained by the authority and if the interest in establishing the truth outweighs the interest of the individual in not using the evidence.[5] Art. 140 paragraph 1 Swiss Criminal Procure Code remains reserved: Evidence obtained in violation of Art. 140 paragraph 1 Swiss Criminal Procure Code is subject to an absolute ban on the use of evidence (e.g. evidence obtained under the use of torture[6]).[7]
[1] Cf. ATF 139 II 7.
[2] ATF 140 III 6 E. 3
[3] Pascal Grolimund in: Adrian Staehelin/Daniel Staehelin/Pascal Grolimund (editors), Zivilprozessrecht, Zurich/Basel/Geneva 2019, 3rd Edition, §18 N 24a.
[4] Pascal Grolimund in: Adrian Staehelin/Daniel Staehelin/Pascal Grolimund (editors), Zivilprozessrecht, Zurich/Basel/Geneva 2019, 3rd Edition, §18 N 24a.
[5] Decision of the Swiss Federal Court 6B_1241/2016 dated 17. July 2017 consid. 1.2.2; Decision of the Swiss Federal Court 1B_22/2012 dated 11 May 2012 consid. 2.4.4.
[6] Jérôme Benedict/Jean Treccani, CR-CPP Art. 140 N. 5 and Art. 141 N. 3.
[7] Yvan Jeanneret/André Kuhn, Précis de procédure pénale, 2nd Edition, Berne 2018, N 9011.
Thailand
Thailand
- at Chandler MHM
- at Chandler MHM
The Thai Supreme Court has ruled that the termination of an employee was unfair due to an investigation being conducted contrary to requirements in the company’s work rules. As such, employers may be liable for damages to employees if there are errors made during investigations, or where investigations are not conducted properly.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that in cases of unfair termination, the underlying cause of the termination should be the determining factor, rather than other issues, including investigative procedures.
Turkey
Turkey
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
The nature of legal exposure is very much dependent on the legal action the employer has taken after the investigation. The employer may be subject to a wrongful termination lawsuit to be filed by the employee, which may result in the payment of compensation to the employee of between eight and 12 months’ salary, if the court concludes that the termination is wrongful. This may also include monetary and moral damages claims. If no termination has taken place, the employee may terminate his or her employment with just cause if the employer has erred in its neutral fact-finding mission and this affects the employee. The employee may also file a criminal complaint to the extent that the investigation findings incriminate the employee in error.
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
A reasonable investigation is a key component of a fair disciplinary process. Errors in the investigation could therefore expose the employer to liability for unfair dismissal under ERA 1996.
Failure to follow the ACAS Code does not automatically make an employer liable in any proceedings taken against it. However, an employment tribunal will take the ACAS Code into account when deciding whether an employer has behaved fairly, and has the power to increase awards by up to 25% where it believes an employer has unreasonably failed to follow the ACAS Code's provisions.
There may be liability for breach of the employee’s contract of employment if the employer breaches aspects of the investigation policy that are contractual, any contractual provisions relating to suspension, or otherwise conducts the investigation in a manner that breaches the implied term of trust and confidence.
There may be liability under the EA 2010 if the investigation is conducted in a discriminatory manner, which could include not making reasonable adjustments to the process for disabled employees.
Where the investigation involves protected disclosures, there may be liability under the whistleblowing provisions of ERA 1996 if the whistleblower is subjected to detriment or dismissal on the grounds of their protected disclosures.
Improper evidence gathering or processing may be actionable under the DPA 2018, IPA 2016 or the IP Regs 2018.
Finally, there may be common law claims in some circumstances (for example where reports need to be made to regulators, which in turn may affect the relevant employee’s future employment prospects) for defamation, or, more unusually, for stress-related personal injury.
United States
United States
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
The subject of the investigation, the complainant, or a government agency investigating the same alleged misconduct could subject the employer to legal exposure. It is, therefore, helpful for a company to prepare a contemporaneous report of the investigation that summarises: the incident or issues investigated, including dates; the parties involved; key factual and credibility findings; employer policies or guidelines and their applicability to the investigation; specific conclusions; the party (or parties) responsible for making the final determination; issues that could not be resolved through the internal investigation; and employer actions taken.
The employer should also maintain a clear record of the steps taken to investigate the alleged misconduct and any findings, as well as all evidence gathered during the investigation, including documents collected and reviewed, any work done to identify systemic issues or patterns of behaviour, and notes from all interviews, which should be limited to the facts gathered, dated and should indicate the duration and location of the interview.
Vietnam
Vietnam
- at Le & Tran Law Corporation
- at Le & Tran Law Corporation
The employer may be exposed to legal action for its failure to conduct the investigation properly, such as a lawsuit for labour disputes or sanctions for its failure to protect personal data as required under personal data protection regulations. For instance, if there were errors during the investigation which led to erroneous results for the investigation and consequently, the employee was dismissed, the employee may file a claim for illegal dismissal against the employer.