Unknown User4
May I share the results of the workplace harassment investigation with the department head?
2026.08.18 09:39
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 and Research Managers Should Do
1. 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.”
2. 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 harm 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.”
3. Divide the information that can be shared and the 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.”
4. 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 the victim's 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.
5. Clearly notify the department head of the duty of confidentiality.
If a department head becomes aware of 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.”
6. 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 | In principle, restrictions |
| 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."
7. Carefully draft the wording shared with the department head.
When communicating results to a department head, it is better to focus on the actions taken rather than expressing 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.
8. Monitors 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 demand 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 table 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 | Adjustment of work contacts, confidentiality guidelines |
| 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.
| division | Confirmation items | check |
|---|---|---|
| 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 that need to be done. | ☐ |
| 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
The first mistake is handing the entire investigation report to the department head. Since the report may contain witness statements, personal information, and internal review details, it is best to provide the department head with a summary containing only the information necessary for follow-up action.
The second mistake is assuming that "since they are the department head, they naturally should know." The decision to share information with the department head should be based on the necessity of action, not their position.
The third mistake is sharing information without verifying the concerns of affected employees. Since disadvantages, rumors, and pressure on relationships may arise after sharing with the department head, it is advisable to verify these concerns before sharing.
The fourth mistake is failing to notify the department head of the confidentiality standards. Upon learning the investigation results, the department head 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.
The fifth mistake is disclosing the witness's identity and the contents of their statement to the department head. This can be dangerous in terms of protecting the witness and preventing secondary harm.
The sixth mistake is including the details of EAP counseling. EAP counseling is a separate channel for supporting psychological well-being, so it is advisable not to include the content of the counseling or whether it was utilized in the materials shared regarding the survey results.
If 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 Route | Response to suicide/self-harm suggestions, risk of violence, and immediate safety risks |
EAP guidance text can be used as follows.
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.
In cases of suggestions of suicide or self-harm, immediate safety risks, or risks of violence, do not respond solely with general EAP guidance; you must first check emergency routes such as 119, 112, or the suicide prevention hotline 109.
Related Posts
-
Comprehensive Guide to Workplace Harassment Reporting Procedures and Prevention Education
-
Guidelines for Operating Counseling Support After Reporting Workplace Harassment
-
Organizational recovery support methods following sensitive reporting
-
What should HR do first when a workplace harassment report is received?
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.
Next step
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.”
First, it is recommended to check the following three points.
| 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? |
If you wish to overhaul standards for sharing workplace harassment investigation results, guidelines for department heads, prevention of secondary harm, and the EAP counseling linkage system at the organizational level, review the operational methods suitable for your organization through a Nudge EAP implementation consultation.
👉 Go to Nudge EAP Implementation Consultation →
Source and Information
-
Ministry of Employment and Labor, Workplace Harassment Prevention and Response Manual
-
Korea Labor Welfare Network, Introduction to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
This content is intended for general informational purposes. Specific legal matters, labor issues, workplace harassment investigations, the scope of information sharing with department heads, personal data protection, disciplinary and personnel actions, and mental health and psychological counseling matters may vary depending on the workplace situation, the latest laws, and official guidelines; therefore, review by relevant experts or agencies may be required. In cases involving suggestions of suicide or self-harm, immediate safety risks, or risks of violence, do not respond solely with general EAP guidance; instead, prioritize checking emergency channels such as 119, 112, or the Suicide Prevention Hotline 109.
Comments5
넛지EAP(관리자)- Unknown User3
- Unknown User2
- Unknown User1