CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Yang Cheng, Songshan Liu, Yan Yu and Weina Wang, Lantai Law Firm
Accordingly, in disputes involving employee miscon - duct, disciplinary action, remuneration, performance management or termination, employers are generally required to prove: • the factual basis for the action taken; • the legality and effectiveness of the internal rules relied upon; and • procedural compliance. Where evidence is objectively difficult for one party to obtain, arbitral tribunals may allocate the burden of proof based on fairness and evidentiary capacity. As to the standard of proof, labour disputes apply civil evidentiary standards. For ordinary employment- related facts, the applicable standard is a high degree of probability. Where evidence on both sides is evenly balanced, the party bearing the burden of proof will bear the adverse outcome. A higher standard applies only in exceptional cases involving serious allegations such as fraud or coercion, and does not apply to rou - tine disciplinary or employment management disputes. 6. Conclusion and Outcome of an HR Internal Investigation 6.1 Deciding to End an HR Internal Investigation PRC law does not set a mandatory deadline for con - cluding HR internal investigations. As internal man - agement processes, their timing is primarily deter - mined by internal rules and the scope of fact-finding required. In practice, an investigation may be concluded once relevant facts are sufficiently clarified and evidence is adequate to support subsequent management deci - sions and the employer’s burden of proof. Although no statutory time limit applies, evidentiary sufficiency is the practical benchmark. Investigation outcomes are usually documented in a written report, and any disciplinary action must comply with applicable statu - tory and procedural requirements. Premature closure may undermine the legality of disci - plinary action, while undue delay may infringe employ -
ees’ interests and increase dispute risks. Employers are therefore expected to conclude investigations within a reasonable timeframe, balancing evidentiary adequacy and procedural fairness. 6.2 Procedure for Ending an HR Internal Investigation PRC law does not impose a standalone or uniform procedure solely because an HR internal investigation has ended. Post-investigation obligations arise only if the outcome leads to employment actions regulated by labour law. As a general matter, employers should formalise the investigation outcome in writing, typically through an investigation report or conclusion memo, to preserve evidentiary integrity. Where internal rules require noti - fication or follow-up, those requirements must be fol - lowed. Absent such rules, there is no general obliga - tion to disclose outcomes beyond a need-to-know basis, and excessive disclosure may create reputation or personal-information risks. If an investigation is suspended or discontinued without a factual conclusion – for example, due to insufficient evidence or pending external proceed - ings – the employer should clarify that no disciplinary assessment has been made and that the matter may be revisited. Suspension cannot serve as a basis for sanctions. Where an investigation concludes with findings sup - porting disciplinary action, job adjustment or ter - mination, applicable statutory procedures must be observed. In particular, disciplinary measures must be based on lawfully adopted internal rules, and unilat - eral termination requires prior notification to the trade union. Failure to comply may invalidate subsequent actions regardless of the investigation’s substantive merits. In summary, ending an internal investigation does not itself trigger mandatory procedures. Procedural duties arise only when investigation results are used to support legally regulated employment measures, and compliance with notice, confidentiality and statutory safeguards is essential to the enforceability of those measures.
112 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook