The Quasi-Judicial Nature of Workplace Bullying Investigations: A Reminder for HR to Avoid Becoming the Next Target

With the implementation of the new law, workplace bullying investigations can no longer be handled as a simple internal process where a company “asks a few people some questions and writes a conclusion.”

For HR managers, chairpersons, and CEOs, the real risk lies not only in whether workplace bullying is ultimately found to have occurred, but also in whether the investigation procedure itself can withstand future scrutiny by the competent authority, the courts, and even public opinion.

Today, a workplace bullying investigation committee already resembles an internal corporate mechanism with a “quasi-judicial character.” If a company still handles such cases based on personal relationships, hierarchy, or managerial instinct, it is often not resolving a crisis, but creating the next one.

For training inquiries, please contact Yesin Law Firm at 02-25156822. Official website: https://www.yesinlaw.com

1. The investigation committee must be detached and independent; it must not become an extension of the boss

The first legal characteristic of an investigation committee is neutrality.

It is not there to endorse the company’s position, to vent anger on behalf of the complainant, or to help the respondent escape responsibility. Investigators should uphold the principles of objectivity, fairness, and professionalism, and establish a strict conflict-of-interest recusal mechanism.

If an investigator has a family relationship, interest relationship, superior-subordinate relationship, or any connection with a party that may affect their judgment, the investigator should voluntarily recuse themselves. The parties may also apply for recusal.

The greatest taboo for a company is appointing someone who is “familiar with the situation” to conduct the investigation, because familiarity is sometimes the beginning of bias.

2. External committee members are not decoration; they are the core of procedural credibility

The regulations require that, for enterprises with 100 or more employees, more than half of the investigation committee members should be external professionals. The purpose is to avoid internal interpersonal pressure, factional relationships, and organizational self-protection.

For enterprises, the value of external committee members lies not only in regulatory compliance, but also in allowing the investigation report to have a credible foundation when facing future labor inspections, litigation, or media scrutiny.

It is especially recommended that enterprises engage attorneys who have obtained labor law professional field certification from the Taiwan Bar Association, or even attorneys with judicial officer experience, to assist in educating internal HR personnel and managers and to serve as external committee members.

Lawyers with judicial practice training are more familiar with investigation techniques, due process of law, evidence assessment, and reasoning construction. They can prevent the investigation from becoming a mere administrative formality.

3. Both sides must be heard; the committee must not listen only to the louder party

Workplace bullying cases are often emotionally intense, but the investigation committee must not replace procedure with emotion.

The complainant must be fully heard, and the respondent must also be given a complete right of defense. If the company reaches a conclusion after listening only to the complainant, or closes the case after hearing only the supervisor’s explanation, this may constitute a serious procedural defect.

The purpose of the investigation is not to take sides, but to ensure that both parties have the opportunity to make statements, supplement their explanations, clarify facts, and submit materials. This is precisely the difference between a corporate investigation and pantry-room rumors.

4. Confrontation is not necessary; this is a protection of procedure, not favoritism toward either side

Many supervisors ask: “Why not let both sides face each other and talk it out?”

The answer is simple. Workplace bullying often involves power imbalance and fear, and repeated harm must be avoided.

During the investigation, it is not always necessary for the parties or relevant persons to confront each other. The investigation committee should conduct separate interviews and cross-check the statements.

This is not favoritism toward the complainant, nor is it a deprivation of the respondent’s rights. Rather, separate questioning preserves the quality of statements and prevents pressure, collusion, or emotional escalation.

The value of a professional investigation lies precisely in being able to reconstruct the facts without forcing the parties into direct confrontation.

5. Fact-finding must rely on evidence, reasoning, and rules of experience

The investigation committee cannot reach a conclusion based on statements such as “I feel he is usually that kind of person.” Nor can it presume that a supervisor would not engage in bullying simply because the supervisor has strong performance results.

Fact-finding must be based on cross-checking evidence, including audio recordings, message records, emails, official documents, performance evaluation materials, witness statements, and event timelines.

Although evidence assessment allows room for free evaluation, it must comply with logic and the rules of experience. In other words, the conclusion must be capable of persuading an objective, rational, and neutral third party.

Why was A’s statement accepted but B’s statement rejected? Why was a certain act regarded as management guidance, or why had it crossed the line into personal degradation, isolation, exclusion, or coercive abuse of power?

6. The investigation process must remain confidential, or the company may turn from handler into wrongdoer

Workplace bullying cases are most vulnerable to information leaks.

Names, job titles, conversation content, interview records, and physical or mental health conditions may all involve personal data and reputational risks if they are sufficient to identify the individuals concerned.

Personnel participating in the investigation bear a duty of confidentiality. Interviewees should also refrain from making their own audio or video recordings, to avoid data leakage, selective quotation, or influence on witness statements.

Enterprises must establish a concept similar to the confidentiality of criminal investigations. An investigation is not a public spectacle for everyone to observe the truth; it is a controlled process for clarifying the truth.

If confidentiality is not properly maintained, before the bullying case is even resolved, the company may already face additional problems involving personal data protection, reputation rights, and a collapse of labor-management trust.

7. The investigation report is not merely meeting minutes; it is the company’s written judgment

After the investigation concludes, the investigation committee should complete the investigation report within the statutory period.

This report should not simply state “no bullying found” or “bullying established.” It should contain a reasoning structure similar to a judicial decision.

At a minimum, it should include the substance of the complaint, the investigation process, statements of both parties, evidence materials, fact-finding, analysis of reasons, and handling recommendations.

In particular, the core of the investigation report lies in fact-finding and reasoning. A conclusion without reasons is a conclusion without defensive strength.

If a party disagrees, they may still seek reconsideration or other remedies and request a renewed review. If the original investigation contains serious defects, such as failure of a person who should have recused themselves to do so, failure to provide an opportunity to be heard, or failure to investigate evidence, the enterprise may face renewed proceedings, administrative penalties, and labor-management litigation risks.

Attorney Chen Yeh-Shin’s Reminder

The focus of workplace bullying investigations is not whether the company is willing to handle the matter, but whether the company has the ability to handle it in a lawful, professional, and reviewable manner.

Corporate chairpersons, CEOs, and HR managers should promptly establish standard operating procedures, including complaint acceptance, lists of external committee members, recusal rules, interview rules, confidentiality undertakings, evidence preservation, report formats, and reconsideration procedures.

More importantly, if the company can engage attorneys with judicial officer experience who are familiar with interview and investigation procedures to regularly train managers and HR personnel on the core principles and limits of exercising internal quasi-judicial authority, the company can further strengthen its ability to identify workplace bullying, conduct interviews properly, and assess evidence accurately. Such attorneys can also serve as external committee members in major cases.

A truly mature enterprise is not one without workplace conflict, but one that, when conflict arises, can still use systems to protect human dignity and the company’s bottom line.

May I ask: can your company’s current workplace bullying investigation mechanism truly withstand scrutiny by an external, real judicial process?