The Quasi-Judicial Nature of Workplace Bullying Investigations: Practical Guidance for HR to Avoid Becoming Part of the Dispute

With the new workplace bullying rules under Taiwan’s Occupational Safety and Health Act taking effect, workplace bullying investigations can no longer be treated as a simple internal process in which a company “asks a few people some questions and writes a brief conclusion.”

For HR leaders, senior executives, and business owners, the real risk does not lie only in whether workplace bullying is ultimately found to have occurred. An equally important risk is whether the investigation process itself can withstand scrutiny by the competent authority, the courts, and even public opinion.

Today, a workplace bullying investigation panel increasingly resembles an internal corporate body with a quasi-judicial function. If a company continues to handle such matters based on personal relationships, organizational hierarchy, or management intuition, it may not be resolving the crisis. It may be creating the next one.

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

1. The Investigation Panel Must Be Independent and Impartial, Not an Extension of Management

The first legal characteristic of an investigation panel is neutrality.

The panel does not exist to endorse the company’s position. It is not formed to vindicate the complainant, nor to protect the respondent. Investigators should act objectively, fairly, and professionally, and the company should establish a strict conflict-of-interest recusal mechanism.

If an investigator has a family relationship, personal interest, reporting-line relationship, or any other connection with the parties that may affect impartial judgment, the investigator should voluntarily recuse themselves. The parties should also be given the opportunity to request recusal where appropriate.

One of the greatest mistakes a company can make is appointing someone who is “familiar with the situation” to conduct the investigation. Familiarity may appear efficient, but in many cases, it is precisely where bias begins.

2. External Members Are Not Decorative; They Are Central to Procedural Credibility

For companies with 100 or more employees, the law requires workplace bullying investigation panels to include a prescribed proportion of external professionals. The purpose is to prevent internal pressure, organizational factionalism, and corporate self-protection from undermining the investigation.

For employers, the value of external panel members is not merely technical compliance. Their participation helps ensure that the investigation report will have a credible foundation if later reviewed by labor inspectors, courts, employees, shareholders, the media, or other external stakeholders.

Companies are therefore advised to retain attorneys with recognized labor law expertise, and preferably professionals with prior judicial experience, to assist in training HR personnel and managers and to serve as external panel members where appropriate.

Professionals with judicial training are typically more familiar with interview techniques, due process, evidence assessment, and legal reasoning. Their involvement can help prevent an investigation from becoming a mere administrative formality.

3. Both Sides Must Be Heard; the Panel Cannot Listen Only to the Louder Voice

Workplace bullying cases are often emotionally charged. However, an investigation panel cannot allow emotion to replace procedure.

The complainant must be fully heard. At the same time, the respondent must be given a meaningful opportunity to respond. If a company reaches a conclusion based only on the complainant’s statement, or closes the case based only on the manager’s explanation, the investigation may suffer from serious procedural defects.

The purpose of an investigation is not to choose sides. It is to ensure that both parties have a fair opportunity to present statements, provide clarification, supplement information, and submit relevant materials.

This is precisely what distinguishes a professional investigation from workplace rumor.

4. Confrontation Is Not Always Required; Separate Interviews Protect the Integrity of the Process

Managers often ask: “Why not simply have both sides sit down face to face and explain everything clearly?”

The answer is straightforward. Workplace bullying cases frequently involve power imbalance, fear, emotional pressure, and the risk of secondary harm.

During the investigation, direct confrontation between the parties or relevant witnesses is not always necessary. The investigation panel should conduct separate interviews and then compare the statements and evidence.

This approach does not favor the complainant, nor does it deprive the respondent of their rights. Rather, by using separate interviews, the panel can preserve the quality of testimony, reduce pressure, prevent collusion, and avoid emotional escalation.

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

5. Factual Findings Must Be Based on Evidence, Reasoning, and Rules of Experience

An investigation panel cannot base its conclusion on assumptions such as “this person has always been like that” or “this manager is a high performer, so they would not engage in bullying.”

Factual findings must be based on cross-examination and comparison of evidence, including recordings, message records, emails, official documents, performance evaluations, witness statements, and a clear timeline of events.

Although investigators may have a degree of discretion in assessing evidence, their judgment must be consistent with logic and ordinary experience. In practical terms, the conclusion must be capable of persuading an objective, rational, and neutral third party.

A well-reasoned report should explain why one statement is accepted while another is not. It should also explain why certain conduct constitutes legitimate management instruction, or why it has crossed the line into personal degradation, isolation, exclusion, or abuse of power.

6. Confidentiality Is Essential; Otherwise, the Company May Become Part of the Harm

Confidentiality is critical in workplace bullying investigations.

Names, job titles, conversation content, interview records, physical or mental health information, and any other information that may identify the parties can give rise to personal data, privacy, and defamation risks.

Members of the investigation team must comply with strict confidentiality obligations. Interviewees should also be instructed not to make unauthorized recordings or videos, in order to prevent data leakage, selective disclosure, or interference with witness testimony.

Companies should adopt an approach similar to the principle of non-disclosure during investigations. The purpose of an investigation is not to let the entire workplace observe the truth as spectators. It is to clarify the truth through a controlled and legally compliant process.

If confidentiality is not properly maintained, the workplace bullying case may not even be resolved before the company faces additional disputes involving personal data protection, reputational harm, and a breakdown of labor-management trust.

7. The Investigation Report Is Not Merely Meeting Minutes; It Is the Company’s Written Decision

After the investigation is completed, the investigation panel should prepare an investigation report within the legally required period.

This report should not simply state “workplace bullying was not found” or “workplace bullying was established.” It should contain a reasoned structure similar to a judicial decision.

At a minimum, the report should include the summary of the complaint, the investigation process, the parties’ statements, the evidence reviewed, factual findings, reasoning, and recommended measures.

The core of the investigation report lies in factual findings and reasoning. A conclusion without reasons is a conclusion without defensive value.

If a party disagrees with the result, they may seek further review through the applicable appeal or reconsideration mechanism. If the original investigation involved serious defects, such as failure to recuse a conflicted investigator, failure to provide an opportunity to be heard, or failure to investigate material evidence, the company may face the risk of reopening the procedure, administrative penalties, and labor disputes.

A Reminder from Attorney Chen Yeh-Sin

The key issue in workplace bullying investigations is not whether a company is willing to handle the matter. The real question is whether the company has the ability to handle it in a lawful, professional, and reviewable manner.

Senior executives and HR leaders should promptly establish standard operating procedures covering complaint intake, external panel member selection, recusal mechanisms, interview rules, confidentiality undertakings, evidence preservation, report templates, and appeal procedures.

More importantly, companies should consider engaging attorneys with judicial experience and substantial familiarity with workplace investigation procedures to regularly train managers and HR personnel. Such training can help internal teams understand both the core function and the limits of exercising quasi-judicial authority within the company.

With proper guidance, companies can further develop the ability to identify workplace bullying, conduct effective interviews, assess evidence accurately, and appoint qualified external members in major cases.

A truly mature company is not one without workplace conflict. It is one that, when conflict arises, can rely on a sound system to protect human dignity and preserve the company’s legal and ethical boundaries.

Is your company’s workplace bullying investigation mechanism truly capable of withstanding scrutiny in an external judicial process?

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

這版已將原文較口語、社群式的句子改為英文官網文章常用的專業論述。