Switzerland: A recent decision by the Federal Supreme Court confirms a reasonable balance between employers' obligations and employees' rights in internal investigations under Swiss law

In brief

When reports come in through whistleblowing channels or concerns about employee conduct otherwise arise, a recurring issue has been whether internal investigations must consider the principles of criminal procedural law. In a recent decision, the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) held that this was not the case and confirmed a reasonable balance between the obligations of employers and the rights of employees provided for by Swiss law (see Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 4A_368/2023 of 19 January 2024).

This decision is welcome for at least two reasons. First, in recent years, scholars have expressed more employee-friendly positions, causing uncertainty about the room available to companies wishing to engage in fact-finding as part of the investigations to understand concerns that were raised. Second, the decision reassures foreign multinational companies operating in Switzerland about Swiss employment law remaining liberal, a refreshing contrast to the much stricter legal frameworks in many other jurisdictions.


Contents

Background

To summarize, the case centered around an employee's termination following an internal investigation for sexual harassment due to a report that had come through the internal whistleblowing channel. The employee brought a lawsuit for abusive termination. The Zurich Labor Court rejected the claim, but the appeal to the High Court of the Canton of Zurich was successful. According to the high court, the employee was unable to adequately defend himself against the allegations raised against him, leading the court to conclude that the termination on the basis of the internal investigation was abusive. The FSC now overturned the high court's decision.

Key takeaways

Further observations and key takeaways are highlighted below.

  • Criminal procedural rules or concepts do not apply to internal investigations governed by employment law. Contrary to what certain scholars have said, the FSC made it clear that criminal procedural guarantees have no direct effect on internal investigations. In this regard, the FSC held the following views:
    • Employers are not required to inform employees suspected of misconduct of the purpose and content of an interview in advance.
    • It is not fatal to the lawfulness of the termination if the employee is not informed ahead of the interview of the option of being accompanied by a person of their confidence, even if that option was provided for in company policy.
    • The reporting person's identity must be kept confidential, and while the employee suspected of wrongdoing has a right to understand the allegations, these should be framed in such a way as to avoid revealing the reporting person's identity.
    • Unlike criminal authorities, employers are under no obligation to consider any and all potentially relevant facts before they arrive at a conclusion and decide on disciplinary consequences.
  • Ordinary termination due to reasonable suspicion is not abusive. The FSC reaffirmed the principle of freedom to terminate employment relationships, which entails the following rules:
    • Employers are not required to provide particular reasons for an ordinary termination of employment to be valid as long as the termination is not frivolous and without any reasonable basis.
    • The employment relationship may be terminated on the basis of mere suspicion. Even if post-termination the suspicion is determined to be unfounded, the termination of employment resulting from the suspicion is not considered to be abusive.
    • The employer does not have to prove that the allegations raised are accurate or, for instance, whether they are the result of a conspiracy against the accused individual.
    • However, the employer is still required to carry out an adequate investigation into the allegations raised before terminating the employment relationship to preempt the risk of finding that the termination was frivolous and hence abusive.

Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.