Search for information you're curious about
Bookmarks
All Posts
Hot
공지사항

Workplace Harassment

May I share the results of the workplace harassment investigation with the department head?
2026.08.18 09:39
Views 35Scraps 5
Workplace Harassment · Investigation Results Sharing Guide

May I share the results of the workplace harassment investigation with the department head?

It is difficult to determine whether it is appropriate to share workplace harassment investigation results with a department head simply because they are the head. HR and investigation personnel must first verify whether the department head actually needs to be involved in follow-up actions, whether the purpose of the sharing is work adjustment, protective measures, or prevention of recurrence, and whether personal statements and sensitive information are being unnecessarily conveyed.

short answer

Whether the results of the workplace harassment investigation can be shared with the department head Purpose of sharing and scope of necessity It depends on
In cases requiring the department head's cooperation, such as changing the victim's workplace, adjusting job assignments, changing reporting lines, separating the victim from the perpetrator, or providing training to prevent recurrence within the team, the results and measures may be provided to the extent necessary.
However, you must exercise caution when sharing the entire investigation report, original statements of witnesses, detailed statements of complainants and victimized workers, counseling contents, health information, private information, and reputation information unrelated to the investigation with the department head in its entirety.
In particular, if the department head is the person reported, is closely related to the conduct under investigation, or there is a concern about secondary harm, it is advisable to restrict sharing with the department head and consider other channels such as senior managers, HR, grievance officers, and legal and labor relations officers.
The key point is Confirm necessity of sharing → Identify department heads to share with → Minimize scope of sharing → Confidentiality notification → Record follow-up actions → Monitor for secondary damage It is to create a flow.

🕒 When will it be applied?

Criteria for sharing workplace harassment investigation results with department heads are necessary in the following situations.
situation
Things HR needs to check
Investigation results confirmed harassment
Check if the department head's cooperation is required for protective measures and perpetrator actions.
Only some acts are recognized
Distinguish and convey the scope of acknowledged acts and follow-up measures.
Harassment is not recognized or conflict is confirmed
Check for the need for relationship restoration, work adjustments, and prevention of recurrence
The victim and the accused are in the same department.
Verification of standards for adjusting work contacts and preventing secondary damage
The victim does not want to share with the department head
Re-examining the necessity of sharing and the minimum scope of sharing
The department head is the accused.
Review alternative paths without sharing results with the relevant department head
The department head participated as a witness.
Restricting information access by separating witness and managerial statuses
The team needs to restore its morale.
Guidance based on team operational standards rather than individual case details
Disciplinary or personnel action is scheduled
Scope of sharing with personnel authorities and approval lines to be reviewed separately
EAP counseling referral is needed
Separate management of counseling content and investigation results
Sharing with department heads is for the purpose of informing the investigation results, rather than Purpose of implementing follow-up measures It must be done. It is advisable to avoid sharing detailed investigation data for reasons such as simple curiosity, administrative verification, or preventing rumors.

🧭 What HR & Investigation Managers Should Do

STEP 01

First, identify the reason why the department head actually needs to know.

Before sharing investigation results with a department head, you must first clarify “why this person needs to know.” Sharing investigation results with a department head who is not involved in the follow-up action can be risky in terms of confidentiality and personal information.
Sharing purpose
Shareability
Points to check
Change of work location
Possible
Minimum range guidance on which employee relocation is required
Adjustment of job responsibilities
Possible
Guidance Focusing on Reasons for Work Adjustment and Scope of Application
Change in reporting line
Possible
Guidance focused on the necessity of action, not personal statements
Separation of perpetrator and victim
Possible
Guidelines on Contact Restrictions and Work Collaboration Standards
Recurrence prevention education
Possible
Guidance focused on prevention standards rather than individual case details
Team atmosphere management
Restrictions needed
Need to prevent the spread of rumors and provide neutral guidance
For reference only
limits
Avoid sharing information unrelated to follow-up measures.
Manager's Curiosity
limits
Not for the purpose of viewing research materials
Disciplinary review
Separate review
Limited sharing based on personnel authority and disciplinary procedure standards
If the purpose of sharing with the department head is unclear, it is recommended to change it from “sharing the entire investigation result” to “requesting work coordination necessary for follow-up actions.”
STEP 02

Identify the department heads to whom sharing is required.

Even among department heads, the scope of information sharing may vary depending on their position. The approach differs based on whether they are the department head of the victimized employee or the accused, whether the two individuals belong to the same department, or whether the department head themselves is involved in the case.
Department Head Type
Sharing criteria
Department head of the affected workers, etc.
Share only the scope necessary for protective measures and work coordination
The department head of the reported party
Share only the scope necessary for taking action against perpetrators, preventing recurrence, and managing operations.
Same department head
Particular caution is required to prevent secondary damage and ensure fairness.
Senior department head
Minimum scope sharing if you have direct action authority
The department head is the person reported.
Exclude from sharing and review separate reporting line
The department head is a witness
Separate witness statements and managerial roles for management
The department head is the reporter
Review whistleblower protection and confidentiality standards together
The department head is unrelated to the incident
In principle, there is low need to share detailed results
The title of department head alone does not grant the authority to access the entire investigation results. The information required of a department head is not “investigation data,” but “measures to be taken as a manager.”
STEP 03

We divide information that can be shared and information that will not be shared.

When sharing with the department head, rather than conveying the investigation results as is, you should organize only the information necessary for work coordination and prevention of recurrence.
division
Shareable examples
Good examples of not sharing
Investigation results
Major outcomes such as acknowledgment of harassment, partial acknowledgment, and non-acknowledgment.
Full investigation report
Summary of judgment
Summary of repeated public criticisms, inappropriate expressions, etc.
Original Witness Statement
protective measures
Review of adjustments to work contacts and changes to work location
Detailed psychological state of the victim
Actor measures
Recurrence prevention training, work-related warning, and personnel action are scheduled.
Disciplinary Committee Internal Review Memo
Work coordination
Changes in reporting lines, meeting seating criteria
Reporter's personal circumstances
Prevention of recurrence
Improvement of internal team feedback methods, implementation of training
Individual counseling details
Confidentiality
Notice regarding the prohibition of spreading investigation details
Irrelevant rumors and reputation information
Aftercare
HR Reporting Standards for Secondary Damage
Witness Name and Detailed Statement
For the department head, it is more important to inform them of “what not to do in the future and what measures to take” than to “tell them in detail what happened.”
STEP 04

We confirm the intentions of the affected workers, etc.

The Labor Standards Act establishes standards to the effect that appropriate measures may be taken to protect the victimized employee during the investigation period of workplace harassment, and that measures contrary to the victimized employee's will must not be taken. Therefore, it is advisable to confirm the wishes of the victimized employee and the risk of secondary harm before sharing with the department head.
Confirmation items
Question example
Necessity of sharing
What measures do you feel are necessary for the department head?
Sharing scope
How much content is okay to share
Concerns
Are you worried about disadvantages or rumors after sharing with the department head?
Work coordination
Whether adjustments to reporting lines, seating, meetings, and work contact points are necessary
protective measures
Whether change of workplace, paid leave, or separation measures are necessary
Aftercare
How should HR verify the information after sharing?
EAP Guide
Whether guidance on counseling channels is necessary in cases of significant psychological burden
However, confirming the wishes of affected workers does not mean that all information sharing must necessarily be left solely to their consent. There may be cases where minimum sharing is required to ensure safety, comply with legal measures, or for organizational operations. Even in such instances, it is advisable to set the scope of sharing as narrowly as possible.
STEP 05

The department head is clearly notified of the obligation to maintain confidentiality.

If a department head becomes aware of the investigation results or information regarding follow-up measures, that information is not to be freely shared within the department. HR must clearly inform department heads of the standards for confidentiality and prevention of secondary damage.
Guide Items
Content to be notified to the department head
Confidentiality
Not unnecessarily sharing investigation details and party information
Blocking rumors
Do not explain or hint at the details of the case to team members
Prohibition of adverse treatment
Prohibition of disadvantages, such as exclusion from evaluation or duties, for reasons of reporting or participating in investigations
Witness protection
No verification or interrogation of who made the statement
Victim protection
Not pressuring affected workers, etc. to reach an agreement or make concessions
Management of the accused
Manage standards for retaliation, contact, and prevention of recurrence
Record management
Do not distribute received materials to personal PCs or messengers
HR Report
Share immediately in case of additional conflict, secondary damage, or concerns about retaliation.
When sharing with the department head, it is better to clearly inform them that “this information must not be shared or used for purposes other than follow-up action” rather than “please use it for reference only.”
STEP 06

Shared documents are separated from the investigation report.

The investigation report may include facts, statements, evidence, the investigator's judgment, and internal review details. It is safer to provide the department head with a separate document outlining follow-up actions rather than the entire investigation report.
Document Type
purpose
Whether provided by the department head
Original investigation report
Retention of internal investigation records and grounds for judgment
In principle, restrictions
Result Notification
Notification of the judgment result and follow-up measures to the parties involved
Limited provision based on target audience
Department Head Action Guide
Request for work adjustment and prevention of recurrence
Available within the necessary scope
Disciplinary Review Materials
Review of personnel and disciplinary procedures
Only necessary people, such as those with personnel authority
Witness statement
Verification of facts
Restrictions in principle
EAP Counseling Information
Guide to Psychological Support Channels
Shareable
Post-management records
Implementation of measures and verification of secondary damage
HR-centric management
Department heads need "directives for action" rather than investigation data. Therefore, it is better to title the document in a way that reveals the management purpose, such as "Guidance on Work Coordination and Prevention of Recurrence," rather than "All Investigation Results."
STEP 07

Carefully draft the message shared with the department head.

When informing the department head of the results, it is better to express them in terms of actions taken rather than personal statements.
bad expression
Recommended expressions
Employee A reported Team Leader B for harassment.
Based on the investigation results, it is necessary to adjust the working points of contact between the parties.
The witnesses said that Team Leader B shouted.
Some of the facts regarding the public criticism and inappropriate expressions have been confirmed.
Employee A says they are having a mentally difficult time.
It is necessary to adjust the workload and contact situations to protect the parties involved.
It is a secret who made the statement.
You must not request confirmation of the witness's identity or the content of their statement.
Please explain this to your team members.
Please do not share the details of the case with team members; just adjust the operational standards.
Separating at the victim's request.
We are adjusting work contact points based on the investigation results and the necessity of protective measures.
If the wording is overly specific, the parties involved or witnesses may be exposed. Conversely, if it is too vague, the department head may not know what to do; therefore, measures should be written specifically, but personal information should be minimized.
STEP 08

We monitor secondary damage after sharing.

After sharing the results with the department head, follow-up verification is mandatory. This is because the department head may unintentionally hint at the details of the incident, rumors may spread within the team, or the victimized employee or witnesses may suffer disadvantages.
Post-management items
Confirmation details
Protection of injured workers, etc.
Exclusion from work, disadvantage in evaluation, or pressure on relationships
Witness protection
Whether there was a request for confirmation of statement, coercion, or pressure
Department Head's Words and Actions
Whether to imply details of the incident, biased remarks, or incite rumors
Management of the accused
Whether there was retaliatory contact, recurrence, or work-related pressure
Team atmosphere
Whether there will be factionalism, spread of rumors, or disruptions to collaboration
Work coordination
Implementation of reporting lines, meeting attendance, and contact restrictions
Additional report
Whether reports of secondary damage or retaliation occurred
EAP Guide
Guide to counseling channels for employees under significant psychological burden
Sharing results is the beginning of follow-up measures. If measures are not implemented after sharing or if secondary damage occurs, trust in the investigation process can be significantly lowered.

📋 Management Sheet Example

The table below is an example of internal management guidelines that can be used when sharing workplace harassment investigation results with the department head. The actual items should be adjusted to align with the company's employment rules, grievance handling procedures, personal information protection standards, and HR/labor review results.
division
Management Items
Record example
Case Information
Case number, filing date, investigation completion date
2026-005 / 2026.08.01 / 2026.08.18
Shared with
Department Head's Name and Position
○○ Team Leader
Reason for sharing
Work adjustments, protective measures, prevention of recurrence, etc.
Need to adjust reporting lines
Review whether to share
Results of the review on the necessity of sharing
Required scope can be shared
Doctors of the affected workers, etc.
Concerns or requests to share
Request for non-sharing of detailed statement
Shared content
Key points conveyed to the department head
Work Contact Adjustment, Confidentiality Guide
Non-shared information
Information excluded
Witness identity, original statement, consultation details
Delivery method
In-person, written, email, video
Provide a memo of measures after an in-person explanation
Confidentiality Notice
Whether the department head was notified
Notice completed
Follow-up measures
Department Head's Action Request
Adjustment of meeting seating, change of work instruction channel
Post-mortem verification
Secondary damage inspection schedule
Confirmation of affected workers, etc. after 2 weeks
Archives
Storage location and access rights
HR Restriction Folder

✅ Checklist

The checklist below is for internal verification by HR and investigation personnel before sharing workplace harassment investigation results with the department head.
especially Necessity of sharing, minimization of the scope of sharing, confirmation of intent of affected workers, notification of confidentiality, monitoring of secondary harm These are basic verification items. If even one of these items is not organized, it is recommended to address it first before proceeding with sharing with the department head.
Among all items If 3 or more are insufficient It is recommended to review not only the level of simply conveying results to the department head, but also access rights to investigation materials, protection measure standards, confidentiality guidelines, and follow-up management procedures.
Sharing purpose
I organized the specific objectives to be shared with the department head.
□
necessity
We verified whether the information was actually necessary for work coordination, protective measures, and prevention of recurrence.
□
Target classification
Distinguished whether it was the department head of the victimized worker, the department head of the accused, or the superior department head.
□
Confirm relevance
The department head confirmed whether the person reported or involved in the incident was the accused.
□
victim's doctor
We confirmed the concerns and requests regarding sharing from affected workers, etc.
□
Minimum sharing
I summarized only the necessary content, not the entire investigation report.
□
Non-shared information
Witness identities, original statements, counseling content, and health information were excluded.
□
Document separation
The investigation report and the department head's action guidance document were separated.
□
Confidentiality
I informed the department head about confidentiality and the prohibition of unnecessary sharing.
□
Disadvantageous treatment
Guidelines were provided on the prohibition of disadvantages based on reporting or participation in investigations.
□
Measures
The department head clarified the work coordination and measures to prevent recurrence.
□
Archives
Recorded the date, time, method, content, and recipients of the sharing.
□
Access permissions
Restricted access and storage rights for shared documents.
□
Aftercare
We set a schedule to check for secondary damage and retaliation after sharing.
□

⚠️ Common mistakes

POINT 01

Delivering the entire investigation report to the department head

Since investigation reports may include witness statements, personal information, and internal review details, it is advisable to summarize and provide only the information necessary for follow-up actions to the department head.
POINT 02

Judging that "since you are the department head, you naturally should know"

Sharing with department heads should be judged based on the necessity of action, not job title.
POINT 03

Sharing without verifying the concerns of affected workers, etc.

Since sharing with the department head may lead to disadvantages, rumors, or relationship pressure, it is advisable to check for any concerns before sharing.
POINT 04

Failure to notify the department head of confidentiality standards

The department head who becomes aware of the investigation results is not someone who can explain or share the information with team members, but rather someone who must implement follow-up actions within a limited scope.
POINT 05

Informing the department head of the witness's identity and statement

This can be dangerous in terms of protecting witnesses and preventing secondary damage.
POINT 06

Delivering the EAP counseling content as well

EAP counseling is a separate channel for supporting psychological burdens, so it is advisable not to include counseling content or usage status in the shared survey results.

💬 When EAP support is needed

Sharing workplace harassment investigation results and taking measures by department heads are not areas that an EAP can substitute for. The evaluation of investigation results, protective measures, action against perpetrators, work adjustments, the scope of sharing with department heads, and the prevention of secondary harm must be conducted in accordance with the company's official procedures and legal standards.
However, the complainant, victimized worker, accused, witness, and team members may experience anxiety, stress, sleep problems, or relationship burdens before and after the sharing of investigation results. In such cases, the EAP may be recommended as a supplementary channel.
division
role
HR/Investigation Manager
Management of investigation results, determination of sharing scope, record keeping
Department Head
Work adjustment, prevention of recurrence, prevention of secondary damage
injured workers, etc.
Request for protective measures, presentation of opinions on follow-up management
EAP counseling
Support for psychological burden and stress before and after the incident
Legal and Labor Affairs
Scope of sharing, disciplinary and personnel measures, review of personal information
Emergency response
In the event of an immediate safety risk, prioritize internal company crisis response procedures and appropriate emergency support channels.
If you experience significant anxiety, stress, sleep problems, or relationship burdens before or after the sharing of workplace harassment investigation results, you may utilize the EAP counseling channel. EAP does not replace judgment of investigation results, determination of the scope of sharing with department heads, protective measures, disciplinary or personnel actions, or legal or labor judgments; it is a supplementary channel designed to support the psychological burden of employees.
If an immediate safety risk is suspected, do not respond solely with general EAP guidance; instead, you must first identify the company's internal crisis response procedures and appropriate emergency support channels.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Is it permissible to share the results of the workplace harassment investigation with the victim's department head?

If the cooperation of the department head is required for protective measures or work adjustments for affected employees, information may be shared to the extent necessary. However, it is advisable to provide guidance focusing on the measures taken, rather than conveying personal statements, counseling details, or witness information.

Q2. How much information must be provided to the reported person's department head?

You may provide guidance to the extent necessary for managing the accused, preventing recurrence, improving work instruction methods, and implementing measures against the perpetrator. However, it is advisable to avoid unnecessarily sharing detailed statements from the reporter or victimized worker, or the identities of witnesses.

Q3. Are investigation results shared even when the department head is the accused?

If a department head is the accused, you must exercise extreme caution when sharing investigation materials or details of victim protection measures with them. It is advisable to consider establishing separate reporting lines, such as senior management, HR, grievance officers, or legal and labor relations personnel.

Q4. What should you do if your department head says, “I need to know the entire content to manage the team”?

What is needed for team management is not the entire investigation data, but the information necessary for work coordination and prevention of recurrence. It is advisable for HR to provide limited guidance on corrective actions, confidentiality standards, and standards for preventing secondary damage, instead of the full investigation report.

Q5. Is the victim's consent absolutely necessary when sharing with the department head?

This may vary depending on the case. However, it is advisable to confirm the wishes and concerns of the affected workers, and even if sharing is necessary, it should be limited to the minimum necessary scope. Particular care must be taken to ensure that no measures are taken against the victim's will.

Q6. Do I need to explain this to team members after sharing it with the department head?

In principle, you should exercise caution when explaining the details of an incident to team members. Even when necessary, it is advisable to focus on general guidelines—such as operational standards for preventing recurrence, respectful communication, and confidentiality guidelines—rather than the specific details of the personal incident.

🎯 Three things to check first

When sharing the results of a workplace harassment investigation with a department head, you must first determine “why it should be shared, what should be shared, and what secondary harm must be prevented after sharing” rather than “whether it can be shared.”
Priority check items
Confirmation details
Necessity of sharing
Should the department head actually be involved in follow-up measures?
Sharing scope
Did you organize only the information necessary for action, rather than the entire investigation report?
Aftercare
Is there a schedule to verify secondary damage and unfavorable treatment after sharing with the department head?

Next step

Department Head Sharing
Limit it to the scope necessary for follow-up actions.
Let's work together to revise the criteria for sharing investigation results, guidelines for department heads' actions, prevention of secondary harm, and the EAP counseling linkage system to suit your organization's specific situation.
Go to Nudge EAP Implementation Consultation →

📚 Source and Information

• National Law Information Center, Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act: Prohibition of Workplace Harassment
• National Law Information Center, Measures under Article 76-3 of the Labor Standards Act in Case of Workplace Harassment
• Ministry of Employment and Labor, Workplace Harassment Prevention and Response Manual
• National Law Information Center, Article 15 of the Personal Information Protection Act: Collection and Use of Personal Information
• National Law Information Center, Article 16 of the Personal Information Protection Act: Restrictions on the Collection of Personal Information
• National Law Information Center, Article 21 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Destruction of Personal Information
• Korea Labor Welfare Network, Introduction to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
This content is intended for general informational purposes. Specific matters regarding legal matters, labor issues, workplace harassment investigations, the scope of information shared with department heads, personal data protection, disciplinary and personnel actions, mental health, and psychological counseling may vary depending on the workplace situation, the latest laws, and official guidelines; therefore, review by relevant experts or authorities may be required. In cases where an immediate safety risk is suspected, do not respond solely with general EAP guidance; instead, prioritize verifying the company's internal crisis response procedures and appropriate emergency support channels.
Comments5
  • Unknown User4
    피해자가 부서장 공유를 원하지 않는데 업무 조정상 공유가 필요한 경우에는 어떻게 균형을 잡는 게 좋을까요? 최소 범위로 공유한다고 해도 직원 입장에서는 부담이 클 수 있을 것 같습니다.
    Profile Image
    넛지EAP(관리자)
    Author
    안녕하세요, 넛지EAP입니다.

피해자가 부서장 공유를 원하지 않는 경우에는 우선 그 의사를 존중하는 것이 원칙입니다. 다만 실제 업무 조정이나 접촉 최소화 조치를 실행하려면 부서장의 협조가 필요한 경우가 있을 수 있습니다.

이럴 때는 피해자에게 먼저 “어떤 조치를 위해 어떤 정보가 누구에게 전달될 수 있는지”를 설명하고, 가능한 공유 범위를 함께 정하는 것이 좋습니다. 예를 들어 사건 경위나 진술 내용은 공유하지 않고, “일정 기간 직접 보고라인 조정 필요”, “같은 회의 참석 최소화”, “대면 업무 배정 조정 필요”처럼 부서장이 실행해야 할 조치만 전달하는 방식입니다.

부서장에게도 “조사 및 보호조치 목적 외 사용 금지”, “관련자에게 재공유 금지”, “불이익 조치 금지”를 함께 안내해야 합니다. 특히 피해자가 공유를 부담스러워하는 상황이라면 부서장에게 전달되는 표현도 최대한 중립적으로 정리하는 것이 좋습니다.

예외적으로 즉각적인 안전 우려나 법적·조직적 보호조치 이행을 위해 최소한의 공유가 불가피한 경우에는 HR 단독으로 넓게 공유하기보다, 공유 필요성·범위·대상·기록을 명확히 남기고 최소 인원에게만 제한적으로 전달하는 것이 안전합니다.

정리하면, 피해자가 원하지 않는 경우에는 부서장 공유를 최대한 피하되, 업무 조정상 불가피하다면 사건 내용이 아니라 조치 실행에 필요한 최소 정보만 공유하는 방식이 가장 무난합니다.
  • Unknown User3
    부서장에게 공유할 때 조사보고서가 아니라 별도 조치 안내문으로 분리하는 방식이 좋아 보입니다. 참고인 진술이나 상담 내용이 섞이지 않도록 문서 자체를 나누는 게 안전하겠네요.
  • Unknown User2
    피해자 부서장, 피신고자 부서장, 동일 부서장인지에 따라 공유 범위가 달라진다는 부분이 실무적으로 도움 됐습니다. 같은 부서 안에서 발생한 사안이면 특히 더 조심해야 할 것 같아요.
  • Unknown User1
    부서장이라고 해서 조사 결과 전체를 볼 수 있는 건 아니라는 점이 중요해 보입니다. 결국 필요한 건 조사자료가 아니라 후속조치에 필요한 정보라는 설명이 이해하기 쉬웠습니다.