Greece

Internal investigations at the workplace 

by Constantinos Kyriakides
Kyriakides Georgopoulos and Daniolos Issaias Law Firm

Greek Civil Code (art. 662) provides for the employer’s general obligation of welfare of the employees, i.e. the obligation to keep the peace and order at the workplace by protecting at the same time the physical integrity and respecting the personality of the employees. 

Several situations can disrupt said peace and order, such as violations of work rules, workplace theft, unfair competition etc. The employer wishes to obtain knowledge of these situations promptly and to initiate internal investigations in order to remedy them. The limits of these investigations differ on a case to case basis, however, the managerial right must always be exercised without any abuse.

An overview of the Greek legislation, legal theory and case law, shows that the employer cannot unilaterally and discretionally proceed to internal investigations, i.e. any eventual investigation should be initiated due to a serious cause, and the employee must give his/her prior consent, such as in case the employee was duly informed about this possibility at the time of recruitment. In the absence of the above conditions/prerequisites, the employer is obliged to call in the public authorities.

Furthermore, the employer must be cautious not to violate any rules of personal data. One of the most frequent examples are those relating to background checks (medical, criminal records etc.) when a person is recruited, video surveillance of the workplace, monitoring of phone calls, emails as well as visit to the website. Greek legislation as well as the Data Protection Authority (DPA) set as primary condition in the above mentioned cases the respect to the principles of proportionality and legality and the free and clear consent of the employee. Following the above, the result is that, for example, copies of criminal records can be requested from the employee at recruitment if the job position justifies same, i.e. the employer is a bank and the job position is the one of a cashier. Same applies in cases of monitoring phone calls, emails, web pages visited etc. which is allowed only when the employee has consented hereto and when it is absolutely necessary for the organization and the monitoring of completion of a specific task. The DPA has ruled that in the above mentioned case, if the employer reserves its right for the monitoring, then he/she must provide room in the server or in the telephone center where employees may communicate personal information, to which he/she has no access. The general principle is that the employee has the right to privacy, which is protected by the Greek Constitution.

Last but not least, even if the employer illegally proceeds to such internal investigations, the results of same usually cannot be used in court, since they are considered as illegal proof. On the contrary, the employee will have a claim of tort against the employer (mainly moral damage), and the DPA may also proceed to the imposition of administrative fines.

Italy

Internal investigations at the workplace 

by Marcello Giustiniani and Vittorio Pomarici
Bonelli Erede Pappalardo

Under Italian law, conducting investigations on employees is subject to certain limits. If these limits are not respected, the employer cannot use any evidence collected for disciplinary purposes (and may be subject to criminal or other sanctions). 

The following are some examples of limits that often tend to recur:

Personal opinions and technical devices:

• Inquiries into an employee’s political, religious, or trade union opinions, or about facts which do not concern the employee’s professional aptitude, are prohibited;
  
• Technical devices that monitor the activity of employees are only permitted when required for organizational production, or safety reasons, and provided that an agreement with the works councils is reached (or a specific authorization is obtained from the labour office) as to the use of the devices.
  

The matter is of particular importance with regard to internet, email, and telephone, because according to case law, these constitute technical devices within the meaning expounded above; monitoring of these instruments may also reveal personal opinions.

Therefore, an investigation conducted by means of any of the abovementioned instruments would be deemed lawful only provided that:

• Employees have been given specific instructions (often contained in a company’s policy) on the use of the internet, email, and telephone, and clearly limiting the use of these instruments only for work purposes, and are informed that the employer may monitor their use;
  
• The monitoring is only made to verify whether the instruments are used for purposes other than those that are work-related;
  
• The instruments are used in accordance with the modalities agreed with by the works councils or set by the labour office.
  
  

Security guards and private investigators:
Security guards can only be hired to protect the company assets; they are neither permitted to monitor employee job performance, nor can they access the company premises during work hours unless there are specific and motivated security reasons for doing so.

By contrast, employers are free to appoint private investigators to check possible breach by employees of their contractual duties outside the workplace (i.e. whether employees take up employment whilst on sickness leave or for a competitor).

Japan

Investigations concerning Sexual Harassment and Bullying 

by Hideki Thurgood Kano
Anderson Mori & Tomotsune

These days many companies located in Japan are involved in accusations by employees concerning their colleagues’ or supervisors’ sexual harassment or bullying. Especially since the amendments to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act came into force on April 1st, 2007, the companies have been required to take necessary steps concerning sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment and bullying may not only damage the mental state of victims, which might lead to the exercise of the Workers Accident Compensation Insurance, but also damage the reputation of the company if the information becomes on the grapevine or is revealed. For any action that the company may take against the harasser and/or the victim, procedures on finding facts are necessary to be conducted in advance. For the purpose of fact-finding, investigations shall be conducted. 

Interviews have to be conducted, first regarding the alleged victim, where the company gets to know the detail of the complaints which he/she may have. Second, interviews have to be conducted with the alleged harasser/bully, on any excuses or explanations or rebuttal that he/she may make/give. After this, part of the harasser/ bully’s allegations will be conveyed to the alleged victim where the company will hear the rebuttal of the alleged victim. Then again, what the alleged victim has said is conveyed to the alleged harasser/bully, probably as the company’s final opportunity to listen to him/her.

Surprisingly enough, what the alleged victim states during the interviews is dramatically inconsistent with what the alleged harasser/bully states, in almost all cases, ─especially concerning the most significant part, such as the "existence of sexual intercourse" between a man and a woman.

Therefore, they are very important from a practical viewpoint: (a) the statements by a third party; and (b) some pieces of hard evidence. Statements by those colleagues surrounding one or both of the alleged victim and the alleged harasser/bully may, in some cases, endorse the statements of one of them.

E-mail correspondence is also important. In many cases, the alleged harasser/bully carelessly utilizes the e-mail system of the company which easies the gathering of information in this situation, in contrast with a cautious harasser/bully who utilizes web-mail systems, such as "yahoo" or "hotmail. This type of evidence sometimes becomes decisive.

New Zealand

Surveillance and employee monitoring in internal investigations 

by Jennifer Mills
Minter Ellison Rudd Watts

It is becoming more common for employers to use surveillance footage as evidence in internal investigations. Employers must ensure such surveillance is obtained through lawful means and follow a procedurally fair process when dealing with such evidence in the internal investigation. 

Unlike other jurisdictions, there is no specific legislation governing the use of surveillance and employee monitoring in the workplace. Surveillance and the monitoring of employees’ email and internet usage, is governed by the Privacy Act 1993. Under that Act, an employer is required to inform employees of any monitoring or surveillance taking place, and explain the purpose of it. However, there are various exceptions, and an employer does not have to comply where informing the employees would prejudice the purpose of the surveillance or monitoring.

Employers must be aware that surveillance and employee monitoring can not be undertaken by unlawful means, or in circumstances which are unfair or intrude to an unreasonable extent upon the personal affairs of employees. An employer’s use of surveillance and monitoring must also be guided by their statutory duty to act in good faith in their dealings with employees.

Employers are able to conduct covert surveillance where there is suspected wrongdoing, and do not need to warn employees of such surveillance. However, the use of such surveillance must be justified, and an employer must restrict any surveillance so that it does not unreasonably breach an employee’s right to privacy (for example, they must not place cameras in changing or locker rooms).

In an internal investigation, employers must take care when using surveillance and employee monitoring as proof of employee misconduct. Employers must ensure that the evidence is sufficient if it is to be relied on as the basis of the allegation of misconduct. Further, such evidence must be shown to the employee, and the employee must be given an opportunity to comment upon it.

United States

Global Background Checks 

by Donald C. Dowling, Jr.
White & Case LLP

Challenge: Many multinationals use robust pre-employment background checking at headquarters, but too often fail to screen applicants adequately for jobs abroad. 

Pointer: Globalize applicant background checks by tailoring a global template to company needs. Then localize the template for each country, following a four-step plan.

Overseas, away from U.S. employment-at-will, hiring mistakes lead to complex and expensive terminations ―making background checking yet more important. Multinationals used to relegate applicant screening to their local operations, not bothering with global alignment. Indeed, practices at some multinationals still differ radically from country to country. For example, many multinationals’ U.S. headquarters do applicant drug screening while their French and Brazilian operations require (believe it or not) pre-employment handwriting analysis.

But now, after September 11, strategic multinationals want to approach background checks and pre-employment screening globally. Multinationals seem to think: We require thorough screening in the U.S. because we don't want to hire a criminal, someone with a bad work history, or an uncredentialed resume liar. Isn’t our business case for screening out bad applicants just as strong internationally, where terminations are so complex and expensive? Because our business case for screening is global, why not align practices globally?

Multinationals can indeed align background checking globally, as long as they tolerate local variations and surmount the significant overseas barriers to applicant screening. The laws in this area are surprisingly complex and varied; to oversimplify can be dangerous. Take four steps:

1. Identify what background checking the company has a business case to do worldwide, in a best-case (no legal restrictions) scenario: Criminal background screens? Prior job reference checks? Credentials/diplomas screens? Credit screens? Full-blown background investigations? Medical tests? Drug tests? French-style handwriting analysis? (Separate out pre-employment pen-and-paper tests, such as skills tests and personality profiles: Those raise a very different set of legal issues.)
    
2. Do a comprehensive country-by-country check for how to do the desired checking locally. Get aligned charts or reports that explain local rules and practices. Get applicant consent forms.
    
3. Adapt screening procedures to local requirements. If any screening will be outsourced, identify local providers, and ensure they commit to follow applicable law. Rein in over-aggressive investigators who may pride themselves on being able to skirt local requirements.
   
   
4. Engage local HR staff, motivating them to implement the screening fully. Ensure local HR is rigorous about consents, notices, and legal compliance, and informs and consults with employee representatives, where necessary. 

Steps #2 and #3 implicate local background check laws—how local laws affect a company’s desired screening approach and adapting procedures accordingly. Account for the wide range of local-law issues:

• Releases: In Belgium, China, Japan, the Philippines and elsewhere, applicants should consent to release background check data.
  
  
• Applicant collection: In Finland, France, Germany, Romania, and elsewhere, applicants must collect and submit information about themselves. But asking applicants to submit their own records raises quality-of-evidence issues. In Greece, applicants can issue a power of attorney in favor of the employer to collect records.
  
  
• Past employment: South Korean law requires employers to comply with a prospective employer's request for a “certified” prior-job-history reference. However, the UK (like the U.S.) can impose tort liability on sources for untruthful references and for slander.
  
  
• Local criminal checks: In UK, the Scottish Criminal Records Office and the Criminal Records Bureau of England and Wales do national criminal checks at three levels (Basic, Standard and Enhanced), depending on the job position and whether the position is “FSA” (financial services) regulated. Otherwise, in most countries criminal checking gets done regionally or by municipality, not nationally. But collecting criminal records is flatly illegal in Poland, and Spain prohibits employers from possessing criminal records (a Spanish applicant might show criminal records for inspection). In Indonesia and Taiwan, police authorities issue certificates of good behavior ("Surat Keterangan Kelakuan Baik," in Indonesia)—but usually the applicant himself needs to collect these. Netherlands police issue certificates like this, but only where the prospective job position could pose a "risk to the community."
  
• Data privacy: Data privacy laws (especially in Europe) can impose severe restrictions on the availability of background check information. This legal issue chiefly goes to the provider of information, and reaches the prospective employer only upon receipt. However, the UK Employment Practices Data Protection Code does expressly reach the “verification” and “vetting” of applicant data.
  
• Lawsuits: In Russia, disappointed applicants can contest in court the underlying accuracy of background information supporting no-hire decisions—making no-hire communications critical. 

International applicant screening is more vital than ever in the post-September 11 security environment, and outside U.S. employment-at-will, where hiring mistakes are expensive. Multinationals can align pre-employment screening worldwide by rigorously following a four-step plan.

Issue 6

Issue 5