Workplace Investigations

A trade union does not have any right to be informed of, or involved in, an investigation by an employer. However, an employee may request that their support person is a trade union member or trade union representative. This is appropriate and should be permitted.

Employers should review the terms of an employment contract, policy or industrial instrument as this may contain terms regarding trade union involvement. In particular, heavily-unionised workplaces may contain enterprise agreements which contain relevant clauses.

The Austrian Labour Constitution Act (ArbVG) does not contain any provisions regarding workplace investigations. The employee has the right to address the works council but is not entitled to have the works council comply with his or her request.

The works council's opportunities for participation are conclusively regulated. Certain investigative or control measures may require the consent or co-determination of the works council.

Under section 96(1)3 ArbVG, the consent of the works council is required if the employer wishes to introduce and maintain control measures or technical systems for monitoring employees that affect human dignity, such as video surveillance or specific staff questionnaires. If there is no works council, the consent of each individual employee is required.

At the request of the involved employee, an employee can be assisted by a member of the trade union delegation, for example, during his or her hearing.

The works council should be informed of an investigation if there is a considerable impact on the company; this will only be the case if the investigation concerns a very serious, important or widespread issue. This information should be communicated as soon as possible and before measures are taken as a result of the investigation. This is only a right to information, not consultation. Moreover, members of the works council may be asked to respect their duty of confidentiality. However, as the enforcement of this duty of confidentiality is difficult, the timing of the information should be chosen wisely so it does not jeopardise the investigation.

No, there is no such right.

The relevant laws and regulations in the PRC have not expressly provided the employer’s obligation to inform the trade union of the internal investigation or the right of the trade union to participate in the employer's internal investigation. In practice, given the confidential nature of internal investigation, the employer usually does not voluntarily inform the trade union of such information. However, in accordance with Article 25 of the Measures for the Supervision of Labor Law by Trade Unions of the PRC, the trade union shall have the right to conduct an investigation if the employer has violated the labor laws and regulations or infringed the legitimate rights and interests of the employee. Therefore, it is still possible that the employer, in the course of the internal investigation, may be investigated by the trade union if it has violated the labor laws and regulations or infringed the legitimate rights and interests of the employee (e.g. being suspected of infringing personal information or privacy).

In addition, if the employer determines that the employee has committed a serious disciplinary offence based on the result of the internal investigation and thus decides to terminate the employment contract unilaterally, it shall notify the trade union of the reasons for termination in advance. If the employer has violated the laws, administrative regulations or the provisions of the employment contract, the trade union is entitled to request the employer to make corrections.

A works council or a trade union does not have a role in the investigation.

Neither the works council nor the trade unions have any right to be informed or involved in the investigation. It is the employer who is responsible for carrying out the investigation. However, when the investigation is triggered due to a works council issuing an alert relating in particular to a “serious and imminent danger”, one member of the works council must be involved in the investigation process.

The works council does not have a general right of co-determination on whether and in what way a workplace investigation is carried out. However, workplace investigations may trigger co-determination rights of the works council in specific cases, as outlined below. If co-determination rights come into consideration, the employer must inform the works council about the investigation to put the works council in a position to assess whether or not co-determination rights are affected.

In connection with workplace investigations, the works council may have a co-determination right in the following cases:

• If e-mail accounts and data are screened by using technical devices that are suitable to monitor the behaviour or performance of employees (section 87 paragraph 1 no. 6, BetrVG).
• If, for example, the employer instructs all or a large group of employees to participate in interviews, the co-determination right of the works council regarding the rules of operation of the establishment and the conduct of employees in the establishment (section 87 paragraph 1 no. 1, BetrVG) may be affected.
• If standardised questionnaires are used in employee interviews, provided they are used for a large group of interviewed employees (section 94, BetrVG).

If co-determination rights exist in the specific case, the works council has the right to co-determine the type and structure of the specific investigative measures used (ie, the relevant investigative measure cannot be carried out without the works council's consent). To avoid any conflicts, the employer should set up, together with the works council, general rules about workplace investigations well ahead of any investigation.

Trade unions have no right of co-determination in workplace investigations.

L.4990/2022 explicitly states that the exercise of employee rights that refer to consulting from representatives or trade unions and protection against any detrimental measure that results from those consultations does not affect the implementation of any legal provisions. The autonomy of social partners and their right to enter into collective agreements regardless of the level of protection provided by L.4990/2022[7] is also unaffected.

Under L.4808/2021, legal persons and associations of persons, including trade unions, that have a legitimate interest in doing so may, with the consent of the complainant, bring an action in the complainant’s name before the competent administrative or judicial authorities. They may also intervene in their defence[8].

Unless the employment contract or the relevant internal policies specify otherwise, there is no automatic right under Hong Kong law for a works council or trade union to be informed or involved in a workplace investigation.

No.

There is no specific requirement to constitute a works council for most industries or inform the trade union about an investigation or disciplinary inquiry.

It is common, however, for individuals to share details of the matter with trade union representatives and seek their support. Further, if an employee has the right to be represented or supported by a colleague (for example, if the establishment is covered by the SO Act), the individual may request trade union representatives to support them during inquiry proceedings.

This will depend on the agreement with the works council or trade union. The employee who is the respondent to the investigation may have views on their trade union being informed, aside from any agreement, which should be taken into account under GDPR provisions.

Generally speaking, a workplace investigation does not require the involvement of a trade union (on the assumption that no specific union agreement has been reached at a company level to entitle trade unions to specific forms of consultation or involvement in workplace investigations, which is not common).

According to section 4 of the Workers’ Statute, as stated above, the involvement of the trade union is necessary regarding the installation and use of specific equipment (such as cameras, switchboards, software) that potentially allows the employer to remotely monitor working activity, and which can be done only with prior agreement of the unions (or authorised by the labour inspectorate).  The union agreement must be made before the installation of the system, and therefore would normally be already in place when an investigation starts.

Pursuant to the WB Decree (Art. 4), union representatives (or external unions) should be “heard” before the employer activates a WB reporting channel[1].

A labour union has no legal right to be involved in the investigation. However, if there is a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the company and the labour union that allows the labour union to be involved in an investigation conducted by the company or to receive disclosure of the results of an investigation, then such a provision should be followed.

There is, in principle, no role for the works council in an "isolated or single" internal investigation. When it comes to structural forms of employee monitoring to measure behaviour (such as video surveillance), the proposed decision to implement such a monitoring system in principle requires the prior approval of the works council.

In addition, according to the Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers,  an employer who is not obliged to set up a works council needs the consent of more than half of the employees when adopting the internal reporting procedure under theAct, unless the substance of the procedure has already been laid down in a collective bargaining agreement.

The law is silent on whether a member of a trade union has the right to be informed or involved in the investigation. Typically, this is dependent on the employee’s contract, handbook or other policies of the employer.

Except if provided expressly under a collective bargaining agreement, the union does not have the right to be involved in the investigation. Given that the investigation is between the employee and the company, it follows that the union does not have any right to participate in the investigation proceedings.

There is no such obligation, unless it is provided for in an internal procedure or, for example, in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. It is neither a recognised practice nor recommended that such persons participate in the investigation.

However, in the event of violations that justify the termination of an employment contract with the employee, the employer should consult with that employee’s union about their intention to immediately terminate any employment contract concluded with that person or to terminate, with notice, the employment contract agreed with him or her for an indefinite term, or apply for consent to terminate the employment contract with an employee who is protected by a union.

Employee representative bodies are not entitled to be informed about or to participate in the preliminary investigation. The works council is only entitled to participate in disciplinary proceedings after a formal accusation has been made against the employee.

A copy of the accusation should be sent to the works council (if any) and if the employee is a trade union member, to the respective trade union. After the instruction phase of the procedure has ended (where the employer has to hear the witnesses identified by the employee in his written defence and file any other sources of information that have been requested), the employer should provide a copy of the disciplinary procedure to the works council (if any) and the respective trade union, if the employee is a member. These employees’ representatives will then have five business days to issue their opinion on the matter.

Finally, a copy of the final decision must also be sent to these bodies.

There is no legal right for the interviewee to be assisted by a representative from the works council.

An employee who is a member of a works council or trade union has the right to seek assistance from the works council or trade union representative (whichever is applicable) and have the works council or trade union involved in resolving the grievances.

For unionised companies, the grievance procedure and the role of the union representative are usually set out in the collective agreement entered into between the company and the works council or trade union. In some organisations, the employee handbook or grievance policy will also state when the trade union representative will be involved in the investigation process.

While a labour union does not have a legal right under Korean law to be informed or involved in the investigation, unless otherwise required under the relevant collective bargaining agreement, there have been instances where the labour union raised complaints that the company did not properly investigate an employee, who is a member of the labour union, particularly if the company took disciplinary action against that employee based on the findings of the investigation. The company should consider such a practical risk when conducting a workplace investigation.

If the investigation was conducted based on a claim filed by an employee to the Grievance Handling Committee (which is a sub-committee of a works council), the members of that committee have a right to be informed of the results of the investigation.

As explained in question 15, employees are not entitled to representation during an investigation. However, if a disciplinary procedure starts as a result of the investigation, employee representatives may be entitled to be informed of the disciplinary procedure and its outcome.

The degree and timing of when employee representatives must be involved will depend on several factors such as:

• the employee’s affiliation to a union;
• if the employee is an employee representative;
• the seriousness of the potential sanction to be imposed; and
• the information rights that the applicable collective bargaining agreement acknowledges regarding employee representatives.

No, but if the employee under investigation is unionised it is appropriate to inform the union about the investigation. If the employer chooses to take action against the employee during, or after, the investigation, the trade union generally needs to be consulted before any final decisions are made.

If the Swedish Whistleblowing Act applies, the employer is not authorised to inform a works council or trade union about the investigation, as it may be in violation of the duty of confidentiality (see question 10).

In general, works councils and trade unions are not very common in Switzerland and there are no statutory rules that would provide a works council or trade union a right to be informed or involved in an ongoing internal investigation. However, respective obligations might be foreseen in an applicable collective bargaining agreement, internal regulations or similar.

Thai labor laws do not require a workplace investigation to involve participation from trade unions or labour unions. However, it is possible for labour unions established under the Labor Relation Act BE. 2518 (1975) to submit a demand for a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with employers to get a seat at the table. There was a case where a management union made a CBA with the employer wherein the president of the management union would be involved in any investigation of any manager, who is a union member, under investigation. In that case, the employer must comply with the CBA by informing the president and allowing the president to participate in the investigations.

An authorized trade union, if any, may have the right to be informed or involved in the investigation, depending on the terms of the collective bargaining agreement in place. Even in the absence of such a provision in the collective bargaining agreement, it would still be recommended to inform the trade union of the investigation as a courtesy. We do not have works councils under Turkish employment law.

Aside from the statutory right to be accompanied (see question 15), any further involvement by the works council or trade union would depend on the terms of the relevant works council or trade union recognition agreement.

Employers generally have no obligation to inform employees of their right to union representation or to ask if they would like a union representative present during the interview. Union employees may insist, however, that a union representative attend any investigatory interview that could lead to the employee’s punishment, although the union representative may not interfere with the interview.

In Vietnam, the “trade union” is the only organisation solely dedicated to protecting employees’ legitimate rights and interests. Under the 2012 Labor Code, the term referring to trade unions was changed to “grassroots-level representative organisation of employees”. But the essence of this organisation remained and was later defined as “the executive committee of a grassroots trade union or the executive committee of the immediate upper-level trade union in a non-unionised company”. As such, it could be said that it was old wine in a new bottle.

As required under article 70.1 of Decree No. 145/2020/ND-CP, which serves as a guide to the Labor Code on working conditions and labour relations, when suspecting that an employee has committed a violation of labour discipline, the employer has to make a record of the violation at the time and notify the grassroots-level representative organisation of employees of which the employee is a member, or the legal representative of the employee if they are under 15 years of age. If the employer detects a violation after it has occurred, it will collect evidence to prove it. In this instance, the employer has no obligation to inform or involve the trade union or grassroots-level representative organisation of employees during the workplace investigation stage.

Also, an employee who is a member of the trade union or organisation has the right to seek assistance from this organisation and may authorise the trade union’s representative to represent and get involved in the workplace investigation.

It is not uncommon for respondents to an investigation to take personal or carer’s leave (sick leave) claiming that they are suffering from stress or anxiety. If this occurs, employers need to act appropriately, but this does not necessarily involve stopping the investigation process.

Employers should:

• assess the medical evidence to ascertain the respondent’s condition and determine how long they are likely to be unwell;
• avoid exacerbating the condition;
• determine whether the employee is unfit to attend the investigation meeting;
• take into consideration the evidence of other witnesses;
• consider delaying the investigation for a short period; and
• consider conducting the interviews in other ways, for example, in writing.

While all efforts should be made to accommodate an employee who has taken personal or carer’s leave during an investigation, if the respondent does not participate in the investigation, the investigation report may be prepared based on the available evidence.

The involved employee's sick leave does not affect the internal investigation. Most investigative measures can be carried out without the employee's presence.

If this occurs, there is a risk that any measure resulting from the investigation (eg, a dismissal) can be (wrongly) interpreted as discrimination based on the illness of the employee. However, if the employer can prove that the measure is not related to the illness but solely related to the investigation (which is also not related to the illness), there may be no discrimination. The sickness of the employee may prevent the continuation of the investigation because, for example, it becomes impossible to hear from the employee. In this instance, the investigation can be suspended, postponed or extendeded until the employee returns. If it is a long-term absence, this could lead to a disproportionate amount of time to complete the investigation. Therefore, the employer should take any necessary steps to invite the ill employee to a hearing anyway (eg, through digital means). If the employee unreasonably refuses (several) of these invitations, it could be argued that the employee is wilfully boycotting the investigation and therefore forfeits his or her opportunity to be heard.

Sick leave suspends the employment agreement, and as a rule the employee should not be contacted during such a suspension. The investigation may continue without the participation of the investigated employee while that employee is absent, have its conclusion suspended while he or she is on leave, and resume once the employee returns to work.

During the investigation, the employer should fully respect the basic labor rights of the employee. According to the relevant provisions of Labor Contract Law of the PRC, if an employee is sick during the investigation, the employer should permit him/her to take sick leave provided that he/she provides the medical certificate issued by the medical institution and performs the medical leave application procedure as required by the employer. Therefore, the employer usually needs to request the employee to cooperate with the investigation after the sick leave, and cannot force the investigation by means of coercion or violence.

However, for the contents that can be investigated by the employer alone, such as the information publicized by the employee on social media and the employee's relevant information publicized on official website, since the investigation of such information is not affected by the employee's physical condition, the employer may adjust the investigation plan and conduct such part of the investigation first.

As a general rule, sick leave does not prevent an investigation from progressing. Depending on the nature of the sickness, the employee can attend hearings and take part in the procedure. If the sickness prevents the employee from participating, the employer can put the process on hold temporarily.

The investigation will likely be able to continue with the other employees and, as soon as the employee under investigation returns from sick leave, they will be able to be interviewed.

However, as disciplinary sanctions are time-barred after two months from the moment the misconduct was committed or from when the employer becomes aware of it, if the sick leave lasts for the whole of that period, the investigation must be conducted anyway. In this instance, the investigator can ask the employee to attend the interview despite being on sick leave or arrange for the interview to take place using other means (eg, conference call). As a last resort, a questionnaire can be sent to the employee, but the pros and cons must be assessed as this is a way of information gathering that carries a certain amount of risk, could be less reliable and is of less probative value.

Workplace investigations that do not require the presence or active cooperation of the employee may also start or continue during the employee's absence due to illness. If the employee's cooperation is required, for example for an interview, the employer can only instruct the employee to participate despite an existing illness if certain narrow conditions are met:

Regarding staff meetings at the company, the German Federal Labour Court has ruled that the employer can only instruct the employee to attend the staff meeting during illness if

• there is an urgent operational reason for doing so, which does not allow the instruction to be postponed until after the end of the incapacity to work; and
• the employee's presence at the company is urgently required and can be expected of him.

Similar rules are likely to apply to the employee's presence for workplace investigations.

Urgent operational reasons that cannot be postponed could exist, for example, if during the employee's absence due to illness, there is a risk that evidence will be lost (eg, where only the employee affected has access to certain files or data) or there is a risk of significant damage to the employer if workplace investigations are stopped until after the employee's return.

In principle, the health of an ordinary employee would not prevent the investigation procedure from taking place (eg, interviews with witnesses or the collection of evidence would not be postponed or suspended). However, if the employee under investigation is unwell and they can't participate in the procedure, the investigation may be suspended or postponed until the employee can take part. Bearing in mind the majority of company internal policies and regulations governing workplace investigations provide for a specific framework and timetable for the whole procedure to be completed, the long-term sickness of an employee under investigation may impede the completion of the procedure in the prescribed time. As a result, the person conducting the investigation may seek alternative measures to facilitate participation (eg, teleconferencing).

On a related note, if sickness occurs after the investigation is completed and the employer decides upon the imposition of disciplinary measures against the said employee and the initiation of a relevant procedure, the decision should be duly and timely communicated to the employee, irrespective of whether his or her presence in the workplace is not possible because of the illness.

If the employee under investigation goes off sick, the employer should ascertain the medical condition of the employee and when he or she is likely to return to fitness. If the employee is unlikely to return to work for a reasonable time, the employer should consider what adjustments can be made to the investigation process to continue with the investigation. If the employee’s input is necessary for the conclusion of the investigation, the employer may invite the employee to provide information by way of a written questionnaire or to attend a virtual meeting. However, the employee may not necessarily agree to these proposals, especially if he or she is unwell. In such circumstances, the employer may not be able to conclude the investigation in the absence of the employee.

The approach to be adopted would be fact-specific but the investigation itself can normally continue, even in the absence of the accused employee. Where it is critical to speak with the employee as part of the investigative process, delays on account of the employee's sickness may need to be accommodated. At the same time, the employer would normally be justified in seeking necessary evidence of the authenticity of the employee's illness and anticipated duration of absence. An accused individual's participation would be more crucial in a disciplinary inquiry to formally respond to the written charges or present their side before the inquiry officer, and absences due to genuine health concerns may need to be reasonably accommodated. Significantly long periods of absence for health reasons may itself be valid grounds to terminate employment under Indian law, subject to the terms and conditions of employment.

If an employee goes off sick during the investigation, it is reasonable to adjourn the investigation until the employee is fit to return to work. Difficulties arise if it is a prolonged absence. The absence may necessitate a referral to an occupational health expert and it may be necessary to seek medical advice as to whether the employee can continue to participate in the investigation. It may be that reasonable accommodations should be considered to ensure that the employee can continue to participate. Such situations may impinge on the investigator's ability to conclude the investigation. In that instance, it would be prudent for the investigator to document all attempts to involve the employee in the investigation and to assess whether it can be concluded without the further involvement of the employee.

Although there are no specific rules stating an investigation must be suspended if the employee under investigation goes off sick, practically speaking, this may slow down the process. Indeed, the employer would not be in the position to “force” the employee, while he or she is absent from work, to physically attend meetings, although they may ask for the employee’s availability to attend remote interviews (eg, via videoconference).

There is case law regarding an employee’s sickness during a disciplinary procedure (i.e. the procedure described above in point 3): according to certain rulings, if an employee, as per his or her rights, asks to submit an oral defence, but then falls sick, this does not prevent the employer from completing the procedure (and taking disciplinary action), unless the employee proves that his or her sickness prevents him or her from physically attending the meeting (being said that, above all if the procedure ends with a dismissal, a case-by-case analysis on how to manage such situations is highly recommended).

The company will seek a physician's diagnosis and opinion and determine whether to proceed with the investigation. If an employee’s mental health suffers because of the investigation, the company may be charged with a violation of its duty of care.

If the employee under investigation goes off sick during the investigation, they will generally be treated as a regular employee on sick leave, meaning they are entitled to continued salary payment and that both employer and employee have a reintegration obligation. This entails regular consults with the company doctor to determine how recovery progresses and when the employee can return to work. If the employer suspects that the employee is merely calling in sick to delay the investigation and such suspicion is not confirmed by the company doctor, the employer can ask the Employees Insurance Agency (UWV) to give a second opinion. When it is determined that the employee is in fact fit for work, the employer can oblige the employee to return to work and cooperate with the investigation. If the employee fails to comply, the employer can – after due warning – suspend the employee's salary payment.

The investigation would be suspended until the employee returns from sick leave. The investigation will immediately restart upon the return of the employee.

Since neither consent nor the presence of the employee is material to the conduct of the investigation, his or her absence would not, in practice, imperil the conduct of the investigation.

As previously discussed, because the employer exercises a wide latitude of discretion in conducting workplace investigations, the employer may choose to proceed with the investigation despite the absence of the employee being investigated. Since the proceeding is only in the investigation phase, the statutory right of the employee to be heard is not violated, even if the investigation takes place without his or her participation.

This may prolong the investigation, as the employee may be unable to participate for a time (if the employee is not able to work, in many cases he or she will not be able to participate in proceedings that requires some level of engagement and psychophysical ability). Also, an employee is protected against termination of an employment contract with notice during sick leave. During such a period, the employer may only terminate his or her employment contract without notice (with immediate effect).

The employer will be able to proceed with the investigation or disciplinary procedure regardless, although if it is necessary to hear the employee and they are unable to attend the interview, either the employer waits for their return or it could also send a written questionnaire for the employee to complete.

If the employee under investigation has already responded to the allegations made against him or her and his or her participation is no longer required at this stage in the investigation, the employer may proceed with the investigation even while the employee is off sick.   

However, if the employee under investigation has not responded to the allegations made against him or her and his or her participation is still required in the investigation, the company may exercise its discretion to pause the investigation until the employee can assist in the investigations.  To prevent an employee from using a medical condition as an excuse to delay or avoid the investigation, the company may require the employee to provide specific medical documentation to address the issue of the employee’s ability to participate in the investigation and to adjust the investigation process accordingly. For instance, instead of scheduling an in-person interview, the company may send a list of written questions for the employee to answer, and may also extend timelines for responding, etc.   

If the employee is unable to return to work for the foreseeable future, the employer may consider reaching a provisional outcome based on the available evidence, which would be subject to change when the employee under investigation can return to work.

The company should review whether the employee under investigation is requesting sick leave under appropriate procedures and for a legitimate reason and may consider ways to persuade the employee to cooperate with the investigation. If the employee applies for sick leave following company policy, the company would need to grant such sick leave and suspend the investigation during the sick leave.

Like in the case of grievances (see question 19), the deciding factor will be assessing whether sick leave is related to the investigation or not.

If there is no link between the investigation and the sick leave, then the leave is not relevant from the point of view of the investigation. However, if the sick leave was a result of the investigation (for instance, an employee taking sick leave due to anxiety related to the investigation), then the convenience of pursuing the investigation or of temporarily suspending it should be evaluated to avoid any liability for the company.

The employer is responsible for the employee’s work environment during the investigation. The employer must assess the situation and the impact on the employee’s health and may, depending on the situation, have to postpone certain investigative measures, such as interviewing the employee in question. The investigation may even have to be completed without the employee participating.

The time spent on the internal investigation by the employee should be counted as working time[1]. The general statutory and internal company principles on sick leave apply. Sick leave for which the respective employee is not responsible must generally be compensated (article 324a paragraph 1 and article 324b, Swiss Code of Obligations). During certain periods of sick leave (blocking period), the employer may not ordinarily terminate the employment contract; however, immediate termination for cause remains possible.

The duration of the blocking period depends on the employee's seniority, amounting to 30 days in the employee's first year of service, 90 days in the employee's second to ninth year of service and 180 days thereafter (article 336c paragraph 1 (lit. c), Swiss Code of Obligations).

If the absence is anticipated to be brief, the employer may wait until the employee's return before concluding the investigation. If the employee's absence is expected to be prolonged, the investigator may alter the time of meetings or request that the employee submits a witness statement. The key point would be that all necessary measures should be taken to give the employee a chance to participate.

The employee’s participation in the investigation is vital for a fair assessment and to ensure that the employee has been allowed to defend himself or herself against the allegations. As such, every reasonable effort must be made by the employer to adjust the investigation process so that the employee can take part in the investigation. For example, if the employee goes off sick and thus cannot attend the investigation interviews or disciplinary hearings, the investigation should be carried out as much as possible without resorting to the employee in question, by initially exhausting the other available options (such as conducting interviews or disciplinary hearings with other available witnesses). However, if the employee’s absence takes longer than is reasonably expected or the matter at hand must be dealt with urgently, the employer may consider concluding the investigation and determining the next steps based on the information at hand. In such a case, it is recommended to explain in the investigation report the reasons why the employee could not take part in the investigation process (ie, why an interview or disciplinary hearing, etc, could not have been arranged with the employee) along with supporting documentation evidencing the employer’s efforts to involve the employee in the investigation process and the employee’s excuse for not participating interviews or disciplinary hearings.

This is a relatively common occurrence. It would usually be appropriate to suspend the investigation temporarily, to determine how serious the health issue is and when the employee may be fit to return. The investigator should consider what adjustments or allowances can be made to progress the investigation despite the employee’s absence. If their evidence has not yet been gathered, the employee may be invited to provide a written statement instead of attending an investigation meeting, or the meeting could be held remotely or at a neutral location. If none of this is possible, it may be difficult to fully conclude the investigation.  

If an employee who is the subject of a workplace investigation becomes sick during the investigation, the investigator should complete as much of the process as possible in the employee’s absence, for example by conducting interviews with the complainant and other witnesses and collecting and reviewing relevant documentation. Where the employee’s absence is expected to be short-term, the employer can postpone completing the investigation until the employee returns to work and can be interviewed. Where a lengthy absence is expected, the investigator should take steps to ensure that the employee nevertheless has a fair chance to participate in the process, for example by providing the employee with flexibility in scheduling his or her interview or by offering other accommodations such as conducting the interview by video conference instead of requiring an in-person interview, or alternatively meeting in a neutral place instead of the office. It is important to maintain records of the steps taken to accommodate the employee to show that the process was reasonable and fair. 

Workplace investigations do not require the presence or active cooperation of the employee under investigation. Thus, the investigation may start or continue in the employee’s absence due to illness.

If the employee’s presence is necessary for the conclusion of the investigation, the employer may invite the employee to provide information either by submitting his or her answers to a written questionnaire or attending a virtual meeting. However, the employee may not accede to the employer’s requests and proposals, especially if the employee has an illness. As a result, the employer may not be able to conclude the investigation due to the absence of the involved employee.

There are circumstances of misconduct in the workplace that can also constitute criminal conduct and be subject to a criminal or regulatory investigation. This can include physical or sexual assault, theft, fraud, illegal drug use or stalking.

An employer can proceed with an investigation to determine whether the respondent engaged in misconduct on the balance of probabilities. The employer can terminate an employee’s employment before the outcome of any criminal investigation. However, the employer must keep in mind that procedural fairness must be afforded to the employee, particularly in circumstances where an employee is awaiting the outcome of a court proceeding.  

Alternatively, an employer may decide to suspend the employee pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. If a criminal act has been committed, then the employer may decide to terminate the employee’s employment.

Co-operation with the police and regulatory authorities is sensible and evidence can be compelled by the police or regulators by, for example, a subpoena, search warrant or an order for production.

Private investigations differ from criminal or regulatory investigations. Nevertheless, even for internal investigations, it is advisable to collect evidence in a way that can be admitted in court, as it may have to be presented to the authorities during the investigation process. Generally, any evidence obtained in the course of an internal investigation may be admitted in subsequent administrative or judicial proceedings.

If the evidence is not voluntarily surrendered, seizure or confiscation is possible. Since official proceedings are often lengthy, suspension is not always recommended.

In legal proceedings, a criminal procedure takes precedence over civil procedures. However, disciplinary internal proceedings (like a workplace investigation) and an investigation by the authorities may run parallel to each other. If the public investigation leads to a court procedure that results in the acquittal of the employee under investigation, it could lead to legal problems if the employer has already imposed sanctions based on the same employee. Therefore, the employer could make the internal investigation dependent on the public investigation, and could take preventive measures while awaiting the outcome.

The public authorities normally have the legal competence to request information that can help them in their investigation. Therefore, they could rightfully ask the employer to share evidence or findings from the internal investigation.

The company may be required to share information or documents with authorities such as a judge, the police, or the Public Attorney's office, or be subject to a government authority’s dawn raid. Workplace investigations can and in most cases should continue, and in such circumstances client-work privilege will be essential to enable the employer to control information being shared with third parties.

The PRC law is silent on how to deal with the conflict between internal investigation and criminal or regulatory investigation. In general, the employer should cooperate with the criminal or regulatory investigation being conducted by the investigating authority to avoid hindering official business.

According to the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, the Administrative Procedure Law of the PRC, and the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC, the investigating authorities (including the public security authority, the people's procuratorate, the people's court, and the supervision authority) have the power to investigate and verify evidence from the witness or the individuals or entities that have access to the evidentiary materials. Therefore, the investigating authorities have the power to compel the employer to share or provide evidentiary materials relating to the case, and the employer shall cooperate and provide such materials. If the employer refuses to cooperate, it may face administrative liability (such as warning, fine and detention of the directly responsible person), judicial liability (fine shall be imposed on the main person in charge or the directly responsible person, and detention may be granted to those who refuse to cooperate) and even criminal liability (those who conceal criminal evidence may be guilty of perjury).

Regardless of a possible criminal investigation, the employer must run its internal workplace investigation without unnecessary delay. A workplace investigation and a criminal investigation are two separate processes and can be ongoing simultaneously, so the criminal process does not require the workplace investigation to be stayed. Thus, parallel investigations are to be considered as two separate matters. The police may only obtain evidence or material from the company or employer if strict requirements for equipment searches are met after a request for investigation has been submitted to the police.

A criminal investigation always takes precedence over other investigations. However, this does not mean that the internal investigation has to stop. It can and should continue, and the report drawn up upon completion of the investigation could be used by the authorities in the criminal investigation. In some cases, especially when privilege does not apply, police or regulatory authorities may request that the employer share such evidence. However, even when privilege does apply, there is no certainty that the evidence would not have to be communicated to certain authorities.

Some administrative authorities often challenge the application of legal privilege or try to reduce its scope. For example, the French financial markets authority (AMF) regularly puts forward its view of legal privilege, according to which an email where a lawyer is only copied (and is not one of the main recipients) in from one of their clients is not confidential and can therefore be disclosed in proceedings. However, if the AMF investigators impose disclosure of privileged documents, this should result in the annulment of the investigation procedure. By way of exception, legal privilege cannot be invoked against certain other authorities, such as the URSSAF (authority in charge of collecting social security contributions) or the DGCCRF (directorate-general for competition, consumer protection and anti-fraud investigations). Where legal privilege is enforceable, the judge must first determine whether the documents constitute correspondence relating to defence rights and, second, must cancel the seizure of documents that they find to be covered by legal privilege due to the principle of professional secrecy of relations between a lawyer and their client and the rights of defence.

In principle, workplace investigations and criminal or regulatory investigations are not dependent on each other and can therefore be conducted in parallel. German public prosecutors have an ambivalent view of internal investigations. On the one hand, they are to some extent sceptical about workplace investigations. They fear that evidence will be destroyed and facts manipulated. On the other hand, they often do not have the resources to conduct investigations as extensive as the companies do. In any event, due to the principle of official investigation that applies in Germany, the investigating public prosecutor's office will usually reassess the results of an internal investigation and conduct independent investigations.

Regarding whether internal investigations reports and material have to be shared with or can be seized by the public prosecutor, please see question 14.

Incidents of violence and harassment may be dealt with by certain independent authorities, such as the Labour Inspectorate Body and the Greek Ombudsman. The former is competent to impose sanctions on the employer if there is a breach of the general prohibition of violence and harassment at the workplace and the obligation of employers regarding the prevention of such incidents and the obligation to adopt policies within the business. The Greek Ombudsman is competent to deal with disputes when there is violence or harassment in the workplace coupled with discrimination due to, for example, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or gender identity. Moreover, the applicable legal framework[13] stipulates that victims of violence and harassment are entitled to lodge a report before the Labour Inspectorate Body and the Greek Ombudsman. This is in addition to the judicial protection he or she may seek and the internal investigation procedure to which he or she may have recourse, without specifying whether internal proceedings may be suspended before the regulatory bodies decide on the matter.

On the other hand, the National Transparency Authority and in certain cases the Hellenic Competition Commission are external reporting channels for employees reporting breaches of Union law. In such cases, L.4990/2022 (article 11 paragraph 5) stipulates that the investigation before the National Transparency Authority is not suspended if reporting procedures before other regulatory authorities have been initiated.

Moreover, criminal investigations can run in parallel with internal probes.

Where there is a parallel criminal or regulatory investigation, the employer should handle the workplace investigation with extra care and ensure that it complies with all applicable legal requirements or lawful requests made by the relevant authorities concurrently. While there may be reasons why the employer wants to progress with its investigation as soon as possible, the employer should not take any steps that hinder or obstruct the parallel investigations. Therefore, it may be appropriate for the employer to stay its workplace investigation if its continuation may prejudice the parallel investigations.

The employer may also find itself duty-bound to stay the workplace investigation if it is subject to statutory secrecy obligations vis-à-vis the relevant law enforcement agency or regulatory body. As mentioned in question 10, several laws in Hong Kong impose secrecy obligations on any person who has acquired confidential information about certain law enforcement agencies or regulatory bodies and the investigations being conducted. The employer should assess whether they could continue with the workplace investigation without breaching secrecy obligations. The employer should take a prudent approach and may discuss with the relevant authority before proceeding further with its workplace investigation.

Depending on the nature of the matter, authorities in Hong Kong handling a criminal or regulatory investigation may be empowered to seize, or compel persons who are the subject of an investigation or assisting in such an investigation (which may include the employer) to produce, documents or evidence that are relevant to the matters being investigated. For example:

• the police or the Independent Commission Against Corruption may, under a search warrant (or in certain circumstances, without a warrant), inspect and take possession of articles or documents inside the premise of the employer they reasonably suspect to be of value to the investigation of the suspected offence; and
• the SFC or the Competition Commission may, under the SFO or Competition Ordinance (as applicable), require the employee under investigation or the employer to produce documents, attend interviews, and, specifically for the SFC, provide the investigator with all assistance he or she ­­­can give. Both authorities may also obtain a warrant from the Hong Kong courts to search the premise of the employer and obtain documents or information it reasonably believes to be relevant to its investigation.

Documents created and evidence gathered by the employer during its workplace investigation (such as witness statements or investigation reports) may be subject to production requests of, or may be seized by, the authorities mentioned above (unless legal professional privilege is attached). The employer should ensure that it complies with all lawful requests from the authorities.

Often the tests or standards applied by external agencies (such as the police or regulators) in their investigations vary significantly in comparison to those that apply for internal investigations that are focused on potential disciplinary action against an accused employee. For example, the standard of proof required for taking an internal disciplinary measure is one of a preponderance of probability and does not require the employer to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard applied in criminal proceedings. Depending on the circumstances, conducting or continuing an internal investigation can also place the organisation in a better position to collaborate with external agencies such as the police or a regulator in their investigations, and be better prepared to share information that such agencies may request. It may also help demonstrate that the organisation does not tolerate potential violations of law or its policies and that it proactively investigates and addresses such issues. This may also help in protecting innocent members of management from liability from external agencies. To that extent, a parallel criminal or regulatory investigation may not normally be a reason for the organisation to suspend its internal investigation.

In the context of sexual harassment claims, the complainant has the right to file a police complaint against the alleged harasser (and the organisation must support  her in doing so). However, a parallel police investigation would not take away the organisation's responsibility to address the grievances through its IC, which would be expected to complete its proceedings within 90 days.  

Workplace investigations can originate from criminal investigations or proceedings. It may be that an employer only becomes aware of a matter through the involvement of the police (An Garda Siochana) or regulatory bodies.

If a criminal investigation is pending it can complicate a workplace investigation, but it will be specific to the nature of the complaint. Likewise, where a regulatory investigation is in scope, an employee may argue that any internal investigation should be put on hold, on the basis that it will harm any regulatory investigation. Such matters will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as it may be some time before any regulation investigation commences, by which time the workplace investigation and any subsequent process may have been concluded.

Employers will also have to consider their reporting obligations to An Garda Siochana. If the matter relates to fraud, misuse of public money, bribery, corruption or money laundering, for example, reporting obligations arise under section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 2011. A failure to report information that an employer knows or believes might be of material assistance in preventing the commission of an offence, or assisting in the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person may be guilty of an offence.

Also, the Irish Central Bank's (Individual Accountability Framework) Act 2023 (the Act) was signed into law on 9 March 2023 but has not yet been enacted. The framework provides scope for a senior executive accountability regime, which will initially only apply to banks, insurers and certain MiFID firms. However, its application may be extended soon. The Act forces employers to engage in disciplinary action against those who may have breached specific "Conduct Standards".

Generally speaking, internal investigations and those performed by external authorities are autonomous.

In addition, there are no general rules under which the employer must wait for the completion of a criminal investigation before completing its investigation and taking disciplinary action; if the employer believes it has sufficient grounds and evidence to take disciplinary action, it does not have to wait.

That being said, criminal investigations – given the wider investigation powers that public prosecutors or regulators have – may help to gather further evidence on the matter. From a practical point of view, the employer may decide to suspend (with pay) the employee apending the outcome of the criminal investigation, although this option must be evaluated carefully, given the potentially long duration of criminal proceedings, and the fact that the employer normally would not be in a position to access the documents and information about the criminal investigation (unless the company is somehow involved in the proceeding).

Lastly, in very general terms, police or public prosecutors have broad investigatory powers during criminal investigations, which could in certain circumstances make it compulsory for an employer to share evidence (but a case-by-case analysis is necessary regarding specific situations). Moreover, public prosecutors usually do not appreciate that, pending criminal proceedings, internal investigations are being conducted, because it can interfere with the criminal investigation.

It is possible to proceed with an investigation of a company even if there are concurrent criminal proceedings. It is up to the company to decide whether or not to proceed. The company may submit collected evidence collected to the police. The police will rarely disclose or provide the company with evidence they have collected. Usually, upon request by the police or regulator, the workplace investigation would be stayed. The police or regulator has to take legally required steps if compelling the employer to share evidence.

In case there is a parallel criminal or regulatory investigation usually consultation between the investigators and the authorities takes place. Agreements are then sometimes made about the investigation conducted by / for the employer. In some cases, the authorities will ask to stay the investigation. There is no policy from the government on this topic.

There are situations where the authorities can compel the employer to share evidence. This depends on the exact circumstances of the case. For instance if the employer is the suspect in a criminal case.

It does occur that the authorities are given evidence upon request without the authorities having to order the extradition of evidence.  

Where an employee has committed misconduct at work that is also the subject of a police investigation, the employer can conduct its own investigation and does not have to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court, in the case of Dongtoe v CSC Plateau State (2001), held that it is preposterous to suggest that the administrative body should stay its disciplinary jurisdiction over a person who had admitted criminal offences.

Further, the police or regulator may compel the employer to share evidence with it in the interests of justice.

It is within the employer’s discretion to pursue the investigation even if a parallel criminal or regulatory investigation is taking place. As such, different investigations may proceed independently of each other. However, if the workplace investigation would interfere with or hinder the criminal or regulatory investigation, the workplace investigation should defer to the investigation being conducted by the people in authority. Since the nature of a workplace investigation is highly confidential, the police or regulations cannot compel any evidence from the employer without a court order.

They can be run in parallel. It is up to the company whether it informs the authority about the ongoing internal investigation.

Based on our experience in criminal matters, a report from an internal investigation may not necessarily be treated as evidence per se, but as a source of information about the evidence.

According to procedural rules stemming from, for example, the Criminal Procedure Code, the authorities can demand to see evidence and documents in the employer’s possession that they consider relevant to the conducted proceedings and their subject matter.

These procedures are independent and autonomous, and the law does not provide any particular rules to ensure coordination. This raises particular concerns when an employee is subject to a criminal investigation in secret, as the employer will be unable to access any evidence from the criminal procedure to begin an internal investigation or disciplinary procedure against the employee.

On the other hand, considering the short statutes of limitation to enforce disciplinary action, it may prove impossible to wait for the outcome of the criminal or regulatory investigation to decide if a disciplinary procedure should also be enforced, because by the time the employer is fully aware of the facts, the statutes of limitation may have already expired.

However, both the judge in a criminal procedure and the regulator have the public authority to order the employer to share any findings within the scope of the investigation or disciplinary procedure.

Generally, there are no issues with an internal investigation being conducted in parallel to a criminal or regulatory investigation. The employer should inform the authorities of the ongoing internal investigation and comply with lawful directions from the authorities, for example, to share evidence gathered during the investigation with the authorities.

There is no obligation to stay the workplace investigation while the parallel criminal or regulatory investigation is being conducted. In practice, companies often proceed with, or even accelerate, the workplace investigation to find out the facts and defend themselves against the parallel criminal or regulatory investigation being conducted. The company should be careful not to engage in activities that may raise suspicions as to whether the company is impeding the government investigation or concealing or destroying evidence.

While the investigation report would typically not be privileged, the company may consider explaining to the authorities that the investigation findings are not conclusive, should the police or regulator request the internal investigation report.

Criminal or regulatory investigations may (and usually do) run in parallel to workplace investigations.

There is no need to stay the internal investigation and, in practice, this normally is not possible or advisable considering the substantially longer timeframe of criminal or regulatory investigations (which can extend for several months or years).

The police or a regulator may request a company to share any relevant information that it might have on the facts being reviewed by them. However, the company’s obligation to provide that information would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the information being requested (eg, whether it is sensitive to the business, such as trade secrets or internal correspondence) and the grounds to do so (if the police or regulator have a search warrant issued by a court or not).

Handling a parallel investigation will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the applicable rules. For instance, an investigation under the Swedish Discrimination Act is subject to certain timing requirements with which the employer must comply. In other cases, it may be more appropriate to hold off the workplace investigation while awaiting the outcome of the parallel investigation.

The police or regulator can, depending on the matter at hand, request an employer to share evidence. The police or the regulator may also, under certain circumstances, retain evidence in a search.

The actions of the employer may carry through to a subsequent state proceeding. First and foremost, any prohibitions on the use of evidence must be considered. Whereas in civil proceedings the interest in establishing the truth must merely prevail for exploitation (article 152 paragraph 2, Swiss Civil Procedure Code), in criminal proceedings, depending on the nature of the unlawful act, there is a risk that the evidence may not be used (see question 27 and article 140 et seq, Swiss Civil Procedure Code).

Employers are not required to wait until the police or regulatory investigations are finished before conducting their disciplinary investigations, but it is necessary to ensure that such internal proceedings do not compromise the integrity of an investigation or result in misrepresentation or a miscarriage of justice. The level of proof for internal disciplinary action is less than the level of proof for criminal proceedings.

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

This situation needs to be handled with caution. It is important to remember that regulatory or criminal proceedings, and employment proceedings, are separate; while there may be an overlap of alleged misconduct, they are usually addressing different questions, with different standards of proof. The outcome in one should not, therefore, be treated as determinative of the other.

Where the employee is suspected of, charged with, or convicted of, a criminal or regulatory offence, the employer should still investigate the facts as far as possible, come to a view about them and consider whether the conduct is sufficiently serious to warrant instituting the disciplinary procedure.

In terms of timing, there are no concrete rules governing how an employer must proceed in the circumstances of a parallel criminal investigation. Much will depend upon the circumstances of the case, the length of delay, the size of and resources available to the employer, and the preferences (if expressed) of the external authority. If the employer is concerned about prejudicing the regulatory or criminal proceedings or otherwise prefers to wait for their conclusion before instigating internal proceedings, they are unlikely to be criticised for delaying. The accused employee may also be advised not to provide a statement in the workplace investigation for fear of a negative impact on the criminal investigation. This would make it difficult to proceed with the workplace investigation, unless the employer is confident it has strong enough evidence to justify any disciplinary action subsequently taken.

On the other hand, regulatory or criminal investigations may take months or years to progress; it may not be realistic for the employer to keep any investigation in abeyance for so long. This is particularly true when the accused employee is suspended on full pay, witness recollections will grow less reliable, and the alleged victim may feel unable to return to work until the matter is resolved.

In these circumstances, the employer may continue with their investigation if they believe it is reasonable to do so, and consultations have commenced with the external agency. The court will usually only intervene if the employee can show that the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings will give rise to a real danger that there would be a miscarriage of justice in the criminal proceedings.

Employers should consider carefully whether and when to involve the police in allegations of employee misconduct. Employers must be careful not to subject their employees to the heavy burden of potential criminal proceedings without the most careful consideration, and a genuine and reasonable belief that the case, if established, might justify the epithet “criminal” being applied to the employee's conduct.

Where the police are called in, they should not be asked to conduct any investigation on behalf of the employer, nor should they be present at any meeting or disciplinary meeting. The employer should, however, communicate with the police to see if they have a strong view about whether the internal process should be stayed, or whether they should interview witnesses first.

Employers have obligations to conduct a thorough and unbiased internal investigation and take prompt remedial action to prevent further workplace violations. As such, absent a criminal or regulatory investigation where the investigators ask the employer to pause an internal investigation, employers should be prepared to continue their internal investigation in parallel with the criminal or regulatory investigation while cooperating with police or regulatory investigators.

The police and the regulator can often compel the employer to share certain information gathered from its internal investigation. In some cases, the employer should analyse whether the non-disclosure of information evidencing criminal conduct within the company itself constitutes an independent crime or whether an applicable statute or regulation imposes an independent duty to disclose. Alternatively, the employer should consider whether, even absent an affirmative duty to disclose, disclosure of information gathered during an internal investigation may still benefit the employer.

There are no issues with an internal workplace investigation being conducted in parallel to any criminal or regulatory investigation. In such a case, the employer should handle the workplace investigation meticulously, pay attention to all the facts and evidence, inform the authorities of the ongoing internal workplace investigation, and ensure that it complies with all applicable legal requirements or directions made by the relevant authorities concurrently. Also, the employer should not take any steps that interfere with, hinder, or obstruct the parallel investigations.