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.
15. Does the employee under investigation have a right to be accompanied or have legal representation during the investigation?
15. Does the employee under investigation have a right to be accompanied or have legal representation during the investigation?
Australia
Australia
- at People + Culture Strategies
- at People + Culture Strategies
- at People + Culture Strategies
The respondent should be given the opportunity to have a support person present during the investigation meeting and any subsequent conversations that concern the termination of their employment. Failure to allow the respondent to have a support person may result in any subsequent termination of employment being found to be an unfair dismissal. This is because under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), when the FWC is considering whether a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, they must consider any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal.
Employers should request that the respondent inform them 48 hours before any meeting of the identity of their support person. This will allow the employer to confirm the support person’s suitability. A support person can be a legal representative or trade union representative, but the role of a support person is limited to assisting the employee and they are not there to act as an advocate or representative.
Austria
Austria
- at GERLACH
- at GERLACH Rechtsanwälte
In general, an employee is not entitled to have a representative present during investigations. However, he is free to reach out to the works council or independently contact a lawyer for advice. The employer must hear the works council upon his or her request on all matters concerning the interests of employees at the company. Once disciplinary proceedings begin, the employee has the right to be represented by a lawyer.
Belgium
Belgium
- at Van Olmen & Wynant
An employee can be assisted by a member of a trade union. They are also free to consult a lawyer.
Brazil
Brazil
- at CGM
- at CGM
Legally, a minor or someone with limited mental capacity must be represented by his or her parents or legal guardian in a meeting at work. Besides that, employers are not legally required to allow any external person to accompany employees during investigations, since these are internal proceedings and, generally, employee participation should be voluntary and not subject to retaliation, including if the employee refuses to participate.
China
China
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
- at Jingtian & Gongcheng
The relevant laws and regulations in the PRC have not made explicit provision regarding rights to representation. In practice, some arbitral tribunals and courts hold the view that it is reasonable for the employee to refuse to cooperate with the investigation if he/she is not accompanied or has no legal representatives. Therefore, the employer usually cannot impose disciplinary punishment by warning or even termination of employment contract on the basis of such refusal. Therefore, we tend to believe that, where the employee under investigation requests to be accompanied or have legal representation, the employer should fully consider and communicate with the employee about the request, and prudently impose disciplinary punishment on the employee for failing to cooperate with the investigation.
Of course, considering that satisfying such request will increase the difficulties and obstacles for the employer to carry out the investigation to a certain extent, we still suggest that the employer include in its rules and regulations such provisions as "the employee being investigated shall actively and unconditionally cooperate with the employer's investigation", etc., in order to provide institutional support for the follow-up requirement or even disciplinary punishment by the employer on employee and to encourage the employee to cooperate in the investigation.
Finland
Finland
- at Roschier
- at Roschier
The employee under investigation has a right to have a support person present (eg, a lawyer or an employee representative) during the hearings and a right to assistance in preparing written statements.
France
France
- at Bredin Prat
- at Bredin Prat
The employee under investigation has the right to be assisted by a lawyer during the interviews and, if the employee chooses to be so, the lawyer must also always be present. The employee may not, however, be accompanied by anyone other than a legal representative (ie, another employee cannot attend the interview).
Germany
Germany
- at Hengeler Mueller
- at Hengeler Mueller
- at Hengeler Mueller
Generally, the employee is free to engage a lawyer at his own expense if he needs legal advice in connection with a workplace investigation. However, the employee does not have a right to consult a lawyer at the employer's expense or to have a lawyer present at an interview. Similarly, the employee is not entitled to be accompanied, for example, by a works council member, during an interview. The involvement of legal counsel may potentially inflate the investigation unnecessarily, making it longer and more expensive. However, it may be advisable from the employer's point of view to (proactively) allow legal representation (eg, to increase the employee's willingness to testify or to create trust) and even to bear the legal counsel's fees. Specifically, if the employee is already a defendant in criminal proceedings or runs the risk of incriminating himself, he should be allowed to be accompanied by a lawyer, otherwise he may be unwilling to cooperate.
Greece
Greece
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
- at Karatzas & Partners
Greek law does not specifically regulate the right to be accompanied or have legal representation during internal investigations for private-sector employees.
However, the right to legal representation established in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights could be interpreted to cover cases such as internal investigations in the workplace. In addition, according to article 136 of Civil Servant Code, the employee under investigation has the right to be represented by an attorney at law. There is an additional argument regarding private-sector employees and their right to legal representation, by applying this provision by analogy.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
Absent any right conferred by the employment contract or the relevant internal policy, employees do not have a right under Hong Kong law to be accompanied or have legal representation during an investigation meeting or interview. While the employee being investigated is entitled to seek his or her own legal advice during the investigation, employers have discretion on whether to allow the employee to be accompanied or represented by his or her legal adviser in an investigation meeting or interview. That said, to ensure fairness in the process and to avoid unnecessary allegations of undue influence, the employer may consider allowing the employee to have legal representatives present, especially if serious allegations are made against the employee and the outcome of the investigation could have a significant impact on the employee’s future.
India
India
- at Trilegal
- at Trilegal
- at Trilegal
In SH cases, parties are not allowed to bring in a legal practitioner to represent them in the IC's proceedings.
In investigations related to other forms of misconduct, there isn't a statutory right to be accompanied by another employee, colleague or lawyer during a fact-finding investigation. In a disciplinary inquiry, if the employee seeks permission to be represented by another person, such as an advocate, co-worker or a union leader, the inquiry officer must decide whether to allow the request based on the specific facts and circumstances as well as any company policies on the subject. If the management has appointed a lawyer to present the company's case in disciplinary proceedings or if the matter is complex and involves legal aspects, courts have held that the employee would also have a right to legal representation.
Further, in general misconduct matters, “workman” employees would generally have the right to be represented by a co-worker in inquiry proceedings, if the establishment is covered under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (SO Act). The applicability of this statute depends on the nature of the establishment and its headcount.
Ireland
Ireland
- at Ogier
- at Ogier
This depends on the nature of the investigation. If the complaint originates from an employee as a grievance, then the employee would have the right to representation during the investigation. Representation in this context is more akin to the right to be accompanied, as in the UK by either a colleague or trade union representative.
If the investigation is a fact-gathering investigation originating from the employer, then the employee would not have the right to be represented during the investigation. That right would apply only at any subsequent disciplinary hearing.
If the investigation is a fact-finding investigation as part of a disciplinary process originating from the employer, then the employee ought to be given the right to be represented at that investigation stage. Again the right is akin to the right to be accompanied. There was concern from employers that the right had been expanded to legal representation in disciplinary matters with the case of McKelvey v Irish Rail. However, the Supreme Court in that case clarified that the right to legal representation in disciplinary processes is only in exceptional circumstances.
Italy
Italy
- at BonelliErede
- at BonelliErede
In principle no, because the investigations’ interviews should only deal with the collection of data/or information and not have any disciplinary or accusatory purpose.
However, if the investigation leads to a disciplinary procedure, the employee – under article 7 of the Workers’ Statute – has the right to ask for a meeting to present his or her justification and, on that occasion, to be assisted by a trade union representative. Employees sometimes ask to be assisted by a lawyer and companies usually accept, as a standard practice.
In defensive criminal law investigations, if the employee is suspected of having committed a crime, he or she must be interviewed with the assistance of a criminal lawyer.
Japan
Japan
- at Mori Hamada & Matsumoto
There is no legal right to have a legal representative present or appointed during the investigation.
Netherlands
Netherlands
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
- at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
All parties involved in the investigation have the right to a fair hearing. How this is embedded in the investigation should be laid down in the protocol drawn up at the start. When the employee, and others involved, receive an invitation for an interview in the context of an investigation, this invitation should include whether or not the employee has the right to bring legal representation to the interview. Given the unequal relationship between employer and employee, this will most likely be the case.
Nigeria
Nigeria
- at Bloomfield LP
The Constitution guarantees the right of every person to legal representation during investigations and interrogations by law enforcement agencies. However, our labour legislation is silent on whether an employee has a right to be accompanied or have legal representation during an investigation. Whether an employee has a right to legal representation will depend on the policy of the employer as well as the nature of the interrogation.
In practice, an employee is usually not accompanied or represented legally during an investigation. However, unless it is stipulated in the employee’s policy, nothing prohibits the employee from being accompanied or represented legally during an investigation.
Philippines
Philippines
- at Villaraza & Angangco
Since the fact-finding phase of the investigation is considered to be a preliminary step before the commencement of the administrative disciplinary process, an employee’s right to representation does not attach.
However, when the administrative disciplinary process commences, the employee has the right to have legal representation during the investigation. While no law requires the employee to have counsel present during the investigation, the employee has the right, if he or she chooses, to be advised by counsel or have legal representation.
Poland
Poland
- at WKB Lawyers
- at WKB Lawyers
- at WKB Lawyers
This is not regulated by law and it depends on internal procedures or practice at a given working establishment. As a rule, the participation of third parties or proxies is neither a recognised practice nor recommended (according to the principle that the fewer people participate in the investigation, the easier it is to determine the circumstances of the case, the so-called need-to-know rule). However, in certain situations it should be permissible for a proxy (eg, a lawyer) to participate in a meeting with a subject.
Portugal
Portugal
- at Uría Menéndez - Proença de Carvalho
Under the Portuguese Bar Association statutes, the assistance of a lawyer is allowed at all times and cannot be prevented by any jurisdiction or authority, public or private entity.
Nevertheless, the law does not provide any obligation to inform the employee that they are entitled to the assistance of a lawyer.
Singapore
Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann Singapore
- at Rajah & Tann
This is dependent on the employee’s employment contract and the employer’s internal grievance policies and investigative processes. There is no free-standing legal entitlement for an employee to have legal representation. Employers may, at their discretion, consider allowing an employee to bring a colleague or to have legal representation if such a request is reasonable, such as to provide emotional support to the employee who may view the disciplinary hearing as an unnerving and stressful experience or so that the employee may be advised and informed of his or her legal rights in respect of the investigation commenced against him or her.
South Korea
South Korea
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
- at Kim & Chang
While the company cannot prevent an employee from engaging his or her legal counsel, there is no legal obligation for a company to allow an employee to bring his or her legal counsel to an interview, for example. If the employee expresses his or her intention not to participate in the interview session without his or her legal counsel, the company may consider explaining to the employee that such refusal to participate in the interview may constitute a breach of reasonable work-related orders and may be subject to disciplinary action. However, the company should consider the possibility of the employee claiming that he or she was not given a proper opportunity to explain the allegations during the investigation because they were prevented from obtaining legal assistance.
Spain
Spain
- at Uría Menéndez
- at Uría Menéndez
A workplace investigation under Spanish law is a fact-finding exercise and not a disciplinary procedure. For this reason, employees are not entitled to representation during an investigation (it is not even necessary to inform them about the enquiry).
If the investigated employees are made aware of the investigation (eg, because they will be interviewed or questioned), then it is good practice to allow them to be accompanied by external counsel or an employee representative. This would reduce the risk that employees would claim that they were under duress during the interview, or that they challenge the validity of the evidence obtained by the company.
Sweden
Sweden
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
- at Mannheimer Swartling
The employee has no right to bring legal representation. However, the outcome of an investigation may lead to employment-related consequences, so it may be appropriate (depending on the situation) to offer the employee the opportunity to bring a union representative (if the employee is unionised) or a legal representative.
Switzerland
Switzerland
- at Bär & Karrer
- at Bär & Karrer
In the case of an employee involved in an internal investigation, a distinction must be made as to whether the employee is acting purely as an informant or whether there are conflicting interests between the company and the employee involved. If the employee is acting purely as an informant, the employee has, in principle, no right to be accompanied by their own legal representative.[1]
However, if there are conflicting interests between the company and the employee involved, when the employee is accused of any misconduct, the employee must be able to be accompanied by their own legal representative. For example, if the employee's conduct might potentially constitute a criminal offence, the involvement of a legal representative must be permitted.[2] Failure to allow an accused person to be accompanied by a legal representative during an internal investigation, even though the facts in question are relevant to criminal law, raises the question of the admissibility of statements made in a subsequent criminal proceeding. The principles of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code cannot be undermined by alternatively collecting evidence in civil proceedings and thus circumventing the stricter rules applicable in criminal proceedings.[3]
In general, it is advisable to allow the involvement of a legal representative to increase the willingness of the employee involved to cooperate.
[1] Claudia Götz Staehelin, Unternehmensinterne Untersuchungen, 2019, p. 37.
[2] Simona Wantz/Sara Licci, Arbeitsvertragliche Rechte und Pflichten bei internen Untersuchungen, in: Jusletter 18 February 2019, N 59.
[3] Roger Rudolph, Interne Untersuchungen: Spannungsfelder aus arbeitsrechtlicher Sicht, SJZ 114/2018, p. 392; Niklaus Ruckstuhl, BSK-StPO, Art. 158 StPO N 36.
Thailand
Thailand
- at Chandler MHM
- at Chandler MHM
Unless the work regulations provide otherwise, an employee has the right to request legal representation during an investigation. If legal representation is requested, it is an opportunity for the employer to confirm and verify that an investigation is being conducted fairly, as the employee under investigation can bring his or her lawyer to attend the investigation.
Turkey
Turkey
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
- at Paksoy
Yes, the employee under investigation has a right to be accompanied by his or her legal representative during the investigation. It is also essential that the employee under investigation is informed about his or her right to have a legal representative.
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
- at Slaughter and May
- at Slaughter and May
There is no statutory right to be accompanied at a disciplinary investigation meeting; the right only applies to disciplinary hearings (section 10 ERA 1999). There is, however, a right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative at any grievance investigation meeting, under section 10, although this is only in respect of the person who raises the grievance (not any person who is the subject of the grievance or other witnesses).
That said, the employer’s policies and contracts should be checked to see if they contain a broader right to be accompanied. Employers may also need to allow a broader right to be accompanied as a reasonable adjustment for disabled employees (for example, to allow family members or medical professionals to be present). Equally, where the allegations are sufficiently serious (eg, criminal, especially if the findings are likely to be shared with the police), it may be appropriate to allow legal representation during the investigation.
United States
United States
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- at Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Employees generally have no automatic right to counsel in connection with an internal investigation, unless contractually provided for under the terms of an employment agreement. Nonetheless, employees may choose to retain counsel, particularly if they face liability.
Vietnam
Vietnam
- at Le & Tran Law Corporation
- at Le & Tran Law Corporation
Yes, the employee under investigation has a right to be accompanied or have legal representation during the investigation. Before the start of investigation proceedings, the employee under investigation must be informed about his or her right to have someone present with him or have a legal representative during the investigation.