No Written Legal Notice, No Proper Case Closure: Seven Key Compliance Requirements for HR in Closing Workplace Bullying Cases

“Our company’s designated workplace bullying complaint-handling unit conducted a detailed investigation and notified the parties that the complaint was not substantiated. However, the complainant was dissatisfied with the result and is now alleging that our closure procedure was unlawful. What should we do to ensure compliance?”

This was a serious question raised by the chief human resources officer of a corporate group.

In day-to-day HR management, few issues are more difficult for HR leaders and senior executives than handling conflicts and complaints between employees. Many HR professionals assume that once the company has convened an internal investigation committee, interviewed the parties and witnesses, and reached a decision that workplace bullying was not established, the matter can be properly closed and filed away.

From the perspective of labor law compliance, however, this is often where another major legal risk begins.

In practice, we often see companies complete an investigation and then inform the complainant only by instant message or verbally, with a brief statement such as: “After investigation, this case was not substantiated.”

No formal written notice.No explanation of reasons.No instruction on available remedies if the party disagrees with the result.

This kind of incomplete closure process not only fails to resolve the employee’s dissatisfaction, but may also become the trigger for a further labor dispute. In today’s labor law environment, procedural justice is just as important as substantive justice.

For labor law compliance training, please contact YesinLaw:Tel: 02-25156822Website: https://www.yesinlaw.com

To help HR professionals avoid labor inspection penalties and subsequent litigation risks, we have summarized seven key compliance points that employers should observe when closing a workplace bullying case.

1. Verbal Notice Is Not the End of the Procedure; Written Notice Is Required for Compliance

Many companies are accustomed to handling sensitive workplace issues through verbal communication. They may believe this approach is less confrontational, avoids leaving written records, and helps preserve workplace harmony.

However, from a labor compliance perspective, verbal explanation is merely a form of communication. It cannot replace the employer’s duty to provide written notice.

Without written records, if the company later faces inspection by the competent authority or labor litigation, it may be unable to prove that it properly fulfilled its notification obligations. This may lead to a finding that the procedure was incomplete, exposing the company to administrative penalties and labor dispute risks.

2. Strictly Observe the Statutory Ten-Day Deadline

Under the draft Workplace Bullying Prevention Regulations, employers are required to notify the parties of the decision within 10 days from the date the review decision is made.

This is a statutory deadline that employers must observe under the occupational safety and health compliance framework.

Once the HR department receives the investigation committee’s decision or report, it should immediately initiate the internal approval process and ensure that formal written notice is delivered to both parties within the required period. Internal administrative delays should not be allowed to result in procedural noncompliance.

3. A Proper Written Notice Must Include Three Elements: Facts, Reasons, and Remedy Instructions

A lawful result notice should never state only: “After investigation, this case was not substantiated.”

In labor compliance practice, a formal written notice should explain at least three matters.

First, it should identify the main facts found by the company.Second, it should explain the reasons supporting the decision that the complaint was substantiated or not substantiated.Third, it should inform the parties of the available remedies, procedures, and contact window if they disagree with the result.

If these core elements are missing, even a written notice may still be considered procedurally defective.

4. Balance Reason-Giving with Confidentiality of the Investigation Report

Many HR professionals ask whether explaining the reasons means that the company must provide the parties with the full investigation report.

The answer is: not necessarily.

When drafting the reasons in the written notice, the company must balance the duty to explain the decision with the confidentiality of the investigation report and personal data protection obligations.

Statements from other witnesses, interview records, sensitive personal information of third parties, and other confidential materials should be properly redacted or summarized where appropriate.

HR personnel responsible for the process must demonstrate labor compliance judgment by distilling the core reasoning of the investigation committee into a clear summary. The notice should allow the parties to understand the basis of the decision while still complying with confidentiality and personal data protection requirements.

5. The Notice Must Clearly State the Appeal Method and Deadline

When a complainant receives a notice that the complaint was not substantiated, or when a respondent receives a notice that the complaint was substantiated, disagreement with the result is often foreseeable.

A compliant written notice should proactively inform the parties of the appeal or reconsideration procedure.

For example, the notice may state that if a party disagrees with the result, the party may, within 30 days from the day following receipt of the written notice, submit a written appeal to the employer with reasons stated, and that such appeal may be filed only once.

If the notice fails to specify the available remedy and deadline, the appeal period may become uncertain in legal effect. This may leave the case result in a prolonged state of instability, which is highly unfavorable to the company’s legal risk management.

6. Establish an Internal Closure Checklist Before Issuing the Notice

To reduce risk, HR teams should conduct a final compliance check before issuing any workplace bullying result notice.

The internal checklist should include at least four core items:

First, whether the notice clearly states the decision, namely whether the complaint is substantiated or not substantiated.

Second, whether the notice explains the main facts and reasons.

Third, whether the notice states any follow-up handling measures.

Fourth, whether the notice clearly identifies the remedy method and deadline.

Only when all four elements are complete can the closure procedure be considered properly documented from a labor compliance perspective.

7. Fulfill the Employer’s Ongoing Responsibility Through Post-Closure Workplace Repair

The issuance of an investigation result does not necessarily mean that workplace relations have returned to normal.

Even if a complaint is not substantiated, the fact that a workplace bullying complaint was filed often indicates that trust and workplace order have already been damaged.

At this stage, the employer should continue to fulfill its responsibilities rather than simply allowing the parties to return to the same working environment without support.

HR should assess whether appropriate workplace adjustments, workflow modifications, separation of duties, or other protective measures are necessary. The company may also consider providing employee assistance programs, psychological counseling, or communication support.

In many cases, the conclusion of the investigation is not the end of the matter. It is the beginning of workplace relationship repair.

A Reminder from Attorney Chen Yeh-Sin

The quasi-judicial nature of workplace bullying investigations is particularly clear at the case closure stage.

Many HR professionals devote substantial effort to the highly legalistic and high-pressure process of investigation and interviews, but overlook the final step of compliance: issuing a legally sufficient written result notice.

The investigation may conclude that workplace bullying was not established. However, the procedure cannot end with only one sentence: “The complaint was not substantiated.”

Precise documentation, adequate reasoning, and strict timeline management are the company’s protective armor against administrative penalties, labor disputes, and litigation risks.

HR leaders should consider reviewing the company’s past case closure files. Do your result notices, particularly those that have not yet been updated in accordance with the new legal framework, truly withstand scrutiny by the competent authority and the labor court?

YesinLawTel: 02-25156822Website: https://www.yesinlaw.com