Unknown User4
When you need to change the person in charge of the workplace harassment investigation
2026.08.21 09:12
Criteria for Changing Workplace Harassment Investigation Personnel
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.
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
STEP 01
We 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
STEP 02
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.
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.
STEP 03
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.
STEP 04
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 also review 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.
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.
Common mistakes
The first mistake is viewing all requests to change the person in charge as emotional complaints.
Since there may be actual conflicts of interest or fairness issues, the specific reasons must be verified.
The second mistake is the opposite: 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 recommended to separate the roles of witness and investigator.
The fourth mistake is failing to properly record the handover of materials after a change in person.
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 involving suggestions of suicide or self-harm, immediate safety risks, or risks of violence, 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.
Related Posts
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.
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
• Ministry of Employment and Labor Press Release on Prevention of 'Self-Investigation' of Workplace Harassment and Revision of 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
• 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
• Ministry of Employment and Labor Press Release on Prevention of 'Self-Investigation' of Workplace Harassment and Revision of 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
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 data 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 necessary. In cases involving indications of suicide or self-harm, immediate safety risks, or risks of violence, do not rely solely on general EAP guidance; instead, you must first verify the company's internal crisis response procedures and appropriate emergency support channels.
Comments5
넛지EAP(관리자)- Unknown User3
- Unknown User2
- Unknown User1