When you need to change the person in charge of the workplace harassment investigation

The case requiring a change in the person in charge of the workplace harassment investigation is not simply because “the complainant or the accused wants it,” but, Whether there is a concern that the objectivity, neutrality, and confidentiality of the investigation may be compromised You must make a judgment based on this. When a request to change the person in charge is received, HR must review it by distinguishing whether it is an emotional complaint or an actual issue of conflict of interest or fairness.

short answer

It is recommended that the workplace harassment investigator consider making a change if any of the following circumstances exist.

division	If a change review is required
Interests	Cases where the investigator has a direct supervisory or private relationship with the complainant or the accused
Relevance to the incident	When the person in charge is a witness, eyewitness, decision-maker, or head of a relevant department regarding the incident
Fairness concerns	In cases where there are indications that biased remarks or attitudes were shown toward one party
Confidentiality issues	If investigation details have been unnecessarily shared or there is a risk of leakage
Self-investigation	When the accused or the user is directly involved in the investigation process
Limitations of expertise	Cases where the matter is complex or requires legal or labor review or external investigation

However, caution must be exercised when changing investigators. Immediately replacing an investigator solely because a party is dissatisfied with the investigation method or has been asked unfavorable questions can disrupt the investigation process.

The key point is Receipt of change request → Verification of reason → Review of objectivity and confidentiality → Decision on change → Transfer of investigation materials → Notification to parties → Record keeping It is to leave the flow of.

When will it be applied?

Criteria for changing the investigator are required in the following situations.

In cases where the complainant requests, “It is difficult to trust the investigator because they have a close relationship with the accused.”
In cases where the accused claims that “the person in charge is conducting the investigation with a predetermined conclusion.”
If the investigator attended a meeting related to the case or is a witness
Cases where the user, such as a department head, executive, or representative, is included as the reported party
If the contents of a statement or the report spread within the department during the investigation process
In cases of sensitive or high-risk matters that are difficult to investigate solely by internal personnel
Cases where the investigator is absent for an extended period or it is difficult to continue the investigation due to work-related reasons

What is important at this point is not the fact that a request has been received, but, Whether there is a possibility that the reliability of the investigation results will be compromised if the person in charge is retained no see.

Criteria for HR and investigation personnel to verify

1. Distinguish between simple complaints and objective reasons for change.

During the investigation process, both the complainant and the accused may feel anxious or react defensively. Therefore, rather than immediately making a change based solely on the opinion that "the person in charge is unsatisfactory," you must verify whether there are specific reasons.

For example, a change may be considered if the person in charge is a direct subordinate of the accused, has a history of conflict with the party involved, or directly witnessed part of the incident. Conversely, additional verification is required based solely on reasons such as "the questions were uncomfortable" or "they did not immediately believe me."

When receiving a request, it is a good idea to record the following information.

The person who requested the change
Request date
Content of the issue raised
Specific grounds or circumstances
Investigation progress stage
Whether temporary measures are necessary
Result of determining whether to change

2. Check if the person in charge is involved in the case.

If the investigator is a party to the case or a witness, the neutrality of the investigation may be compromised. In particular, if the investigator is on the same team as the accused or was involved in the accused's evaluation, promotion, or disciplinary action, there is room to view a conflict of interest.

The representative situations requiring a change review are as follows.

situation	Direction of review
The person in charge is the direct superior or subordinate of the person reported.	Review of replacement of investigator or joint investigation
The person in charge has a personal relationship or conflict with the complainant	Neutrality concerns confirmed
The person in charge witnessed the incident firsthand.	Separation of witness status and investigator role
The person in charge proceeded with the existing grievance counseling.	Separation of counseling records and investigation/judgment roles
The user is included as the reported party.	Exclude the user in question from the investigation process and review for an external or separate investigation.
The investigator is suspected of leaking data	Review of access restriction and change of person in charge

The investigator must play the role of verifying the facts. If the investigator is someone too close to the case, the parties involved may find it difficult to trust the investigation results.

3. Check if there were any confidentiality issues.

Workplace harassment investigations involve the exchange of sensitive statements from the complainant, victim, the accused, and witnesses. If the details of the investigation have been disclosed to the department, the names of witnesses have been exposed, or investigation materials have been widely shared via messenger, it may be necessary to reorganize access permissions along with changing the person in charge.

In this case, do not stop at simply changing the person in charge; you must verify which materials were shared with whom. Additionally, to prevent further leaks, you must also check the storage location of the investigation materials, access permissions, and delivery methods.

4. Determine whether an external or joint investigation is necessary.

It is not necessary to switch every matter to an external investigation. However, if internal interests are complex, if management or executives are involved, or if distrust regarding the same incident has already grown significantly, a third-party review by external labor consultants, attorneys, or external investigation committee members may be considered.

When considering an external investigation, the purpose must also be clearly defined. It should not be an “externalization to evade company liability,” but rather a method to ensure objectivity and procedural reliability.

Procedure for Changing Person in Charge

If you decide to change the person in charge of the investigation, you must manage both the continuity of the investigation and the protection of confidentiality together, rather than simply announcing the change.

The reasons for the change and the basis for the decision are recorded internally.
Organizing the access rights to investigation data for the existing person in charge.
We will hand over only the materials necessary for the new person in charge on a limited basis.
The party concerned will be briefly informed only of the change in the investigator and the future schedule.
Verify the data preservation status to ensure that there is no arbitrary modification or omission of existing statements even after the change.
We are also reviewing protective measures and the schedule to ensure that affected workers and others do not suffer disadvantages due to delays in the investigation.

The notice to the parties can be written simply as follows.

The investigator in charge has been changed to ensure the objectivity of the investigation and the reliability of the procedures. Previously submitted materials and statements will be transferred to the new officer to the extent necessary, and information learned during the investigation will be managed in accordance with confidentiality standards. The future investigation schedule will be announced separately.

It is advisable to avoid widely sharing the entire investigation details again or unnecessarily repeating interviews with existing witnesses due to a change in the person in charge.

Management table example

The table below is an example of internal management that can be used when reviewing whether to change the investigator.

division	Record Item	Record example
Case Information	Case number, filing date	2026-008 / 2026.08.21
Existing person in charge	Department in charge · Name	HR Manager A
Change requester	Reporter, respondent, HR's own judgment, etc.	reporter
Reason for request	Conflicts of interest, concerns regarding bias, confidentiality issues, etc.	Work history in the same department as the accused
Confirmation result	Whether there is an objective reason for the change	Partial recognition
decision	Maintenance, joint investigation, change of person in charge, external investigation	Change of person in charge
New person in charge	Internal personnel or external experts	HR Department Head B
Scope of handover	Statements, evidence, schedules, etc.	Handover of existing statements and evidence
Information status	Date of notification to the parties	2026.08.23
Follow-up measures	Protective measures and schedule readjustment	Investigation schedule extended by 3 days

Checklist

The checklist below is for internal verification to determine if a change in the person in charge of workplace harassment investigations is necessary.

especially Conflict of interest, relevance to the case, fairness concerns, confidentiality issues, handover of investigation materials is a basic verification item. Among all items If 3 or more are insufficient It is recommended to re-examine whether to retain the person in charge.

division	Confirmation items	check
Request received	Recorded the request for a change of person in charge or the reason for the necessity.	☐
Interests	We verified the supervisory relationship, acquaintance, and existence of conflict between the person in charge and the complainant/reported party.	☐
Relevance to the incident	We confirmed whether the person in charge was a reference, witness, or decision-maker regarding the case.	☐
fairness	We checked for any biased remarks, prejudice, or indications of unfair proceedings.	☐
Confidentiality	We checked whether the investigation details were leaked or unnecessarily shared.	☐
User-related	We reviewed the necessity of excluding the user from the investigation process if the user is the accused.	☐
External investigation	We reviewed whether it is difficult to ensure objectivity through internal investigation alone.	☐
Change decision	It was decided to proceed with one of the following: retaining the person in charge, changing the person in charge, joint investigation, or external investigation.	☐
Data handover	The existing survey data was safely transferred to the necessary extent.	☐
Parties Information	The parties were notified of the changes and the future schedule.	☐
Archives	The reason for the change, the basis for the judgment, the scope of the handover, and the guidance history were stored.	☐

Common mistakes

The first mistake is viewing all requests to change the person in charge as mere emotional grievances. Since there may be actual conflicts of interest or issues of fairness involved, you must verify the specific reasons.

The second mistake is, conversely, changing the person in charge every time a request comes in. Repeatedly changing the person in charge without objective grounds can undermine the stability of the investigation schedule and procedures.

The third mistake is continuing to assign the investigation role to the existing person in charge even though they are a witness in the case. It is best to separate the roles of witness and investigator.

The fourth mistake is failing to properly record the handover of materials after a change in personnel. If records are not kept regarding which materials were handed over to whom, it becomes difficult to maintain the continuity of the investigation and manage confidentiality.

If EAP support is needed

Changing the person in charge of a workplace harassment investigation is not an area that the EAP can handle. Decisions regarding the change of the person in charge, the scope of the investigation, protective measures, disciplinary and personnel actions, and legal and labor judgments must be conducted in accordance with the company's official procedures and expert reviews.

However, if trust in the investigation is shaken to the extent that a request to change the investigator arises, the complainant, victimized worker, accused party, and witnesses may all experience psychological burden. In such cases, the EAP can be recommended as a supplementary channel.

For example, you can provide guidance as follows.

If you experience significant anxiety, stress, sleep problems, or relationship burdens during the workplace harassment investigation process, you may utilize EAP counseling channels. EAP does not replace changing investigators, determining facts, implementing protective measures, taking disciplinary or personnel actions, or making 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.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. If a complainant requests a change of investigator, is it mandatory to make the change?

It is difficult to conclude that a change is absolutely necessary. However, if the grounds raised by the whistleblower involve concerns regarding objective fairness, such as conflicts of interest, biased remarks, or issues of confidentiality, it is advisable to consider a change or a joint investigation.

Q2. Should I review a request from the reported party to change the person in charge?

A review is necessary. Even if the request is from the accused, it must be verified if it involves the investigator's prior judgment, conflicts of interest, or the raising of procedural issues. However, it must also be examined whether the repeated request is intended to delay or evade the investigation.

Q3. Is it permissible for the department head to serve as the investigator?

If a department head is unrelated to the incident and can ensure objectivity, they may assume a role in verifying some details. However, if the department head is in the chain of command of the accused, witnesses, or victimized workers, or has a conflict of interest, they must exercise caution in their role as the investigator.

Q4. What should be done if the user is the accused?

If a user is reported as the perpetrator, it is advisable to exclude them from the investigation process and consider a separate investigator or external expert. Failure to ensure the fairness of the investigation may undermine the credibility of the results.

Q5. To what extent must the person concerned be notified of the change in person?

Rather than disclosing the detailed reasons for the change, it is advisable to inform the public that the person in charge has changed and provide the future investigation schedule to ensure the objectivity of the investigation and the reliability of the procedures. Existing investigation materials must be transferred only to the extent necessary in accordance with confidentiality standards.

Next step

Changing the person in charge of a workplace harassment investigation is directly linked to the credibility of the investigation process. Rather than immediately accepting or rejecting a request, a decision must be made based on conflicts of interest, relevance to the incident, concerns regarding fairness, and issues of confidentiality.

First, record the reason for the change request, and verify how the person in charge relates to the case, whether investigation materials are being managed securely, and whether an external or joint investigation is necessary.

If you wish to overhaul the criteria for designating workplace harassment investigators, procedures for changing personnel, standards for handing over investigation materials, 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

This content is intended for general informational purposes. Specific matters regarding legal matters, labor issues, workplace harassment investigations, designation or change of investigators, transfer of investigation materials, personal information protection, disciplinary and personnel actions, and mental health and psychological counseling 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.

Workplace Harassment