Seyfarth recently hosted a webinar entitled ‘Managing Cross-Border Sexual Harassment Investigations in Australia and Asia’, addressing the practical considerations that employers should be aware of when investigating allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace. This webinar highlighted relevant laws and examples from Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Given the strong interest in this topic, we bring you a series of three blogs that highlight 10 key considerations.
Managing cross-border sexual harassment investigations in the Asia Pacific region presents unique challenges due to varying legal frameworks, cultural norms, and procedural requirements. This blog series aims to provide an outline to help navigate these complexities, focusing on the key differences in investigation procedures across the Asia Pacific region. By understanding these differences, organisations can ensure that their investigations are conducted fairly, efficiently, and in compliance with local laws.
Part one of this series covers our first three considerations – the definition of ‘workplace’ harassment, privilege, and investigation teams.
#1 – When is ‘workplace’ sexual harassment unlawful in each country?
This question affects when sexual harassment is a matter for employers, and can validly be the subject of an investigation. Remote work, social events, and other non-traditional settings can all raise complexities.
In Australia, sexual harassment is unlawful (and employer liability can arise) in a variety of circumstances where the harasser or victim is a worker, or where there is a relevant connection to work. This extends outside the boundary of a physical ‘workplace’ or ordinary working hours.
In the PRC, ‘workplace’ usually encompasses social activities closely related to work and company organised events, for example, a work Christmas party.
In Hong Kong and Singapore, ‘out of hours’ events may be considered part of the ‘workplace’ if there is a sufficient connection between the workplace or employment and the out-of-hours conduct engaged in by the employee. In Hong Kong, workplace sexual harassment can occur not just between employees but between any ‘workplace participant’, which includes contract workers, interns, and volunteers as well.
#2 – Establishing the scope of sexual harassment investigations
Being clear about the scope of a workplace investigation will help define the specific issues to be investigated, and what questions the investigator will (or won’t) answer. For an investigation to be thorough and effective, the scope must be clearly defined to ensure that it addresses all the relevant issues.
In Australia, it can assist to ensure the scope is recorded in writing, including what allegations are being investigated and whether the investigation will be limited to fact-finding.
In Hong Kong, the scope of the investigation is quite often limited to fact-finding, with advice on what action to take subsequent to the investigation (including any disciplinary action) being carried out by separate lawyers within the same firm (with information barriers put in place) or a different firm, so as to maintain the independence of the investigation. The position is similar in Singapore, but with a little more flexibility.
In the PRC, investigators play a more active role than other jurisdictions in deciding the scope of an investigation, as well as providing recommendations and participating in disciplinary proceedings.
#3 – How is privileged information protected during investigations?
Legal privilege varies significantly across jurisdictions. This affects the extent to which confidential communications and documents can be protected from requests or orders for disclosure.
Legal privilege in Australia can apply to confidential communications where the dominant purpose was for litigation or provision of legal advice. It is possible that investigation records and the final report can be protected by legal privilege where they were created for a privileged purpose. In Australia, a common cause of dispute is whether privilege has been waived by later disclosure or use of documents for other purposes or if promises have been made about what would be disclosed.
In Hong Kong and Singapore, where investigations are conducted on a pure fact-finding basis (i.e., no legal advice is provided) and litigation is not reasonably in contemplation at the time of the investigation, it can be more challenging to assert legal privilege over the investigation process and report. If a client wants an investigation to be conducted under privilege, this will need to be carefully considered when establishing the scope of the investigation and steps put in place to achieve the protection of privilege.
The PRC does not recognise legal privilege like common law jurisdictions do. Lawyers in the PRC have an obligation to maintain confidentiality and have the right to refuse disclosure of certain documents or information in order to protect clients’ trade secrets and personal data.
In part two of our series, we will look at who forms part of an investigation team, how location affects which laws apply to an investigation, and notification requirements.
Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.