NORWAY Law and Practice Contributed by: Thomas Talén, Øyvind Clausen Bade, Marte Dahl and Marianne Viset, Ro Sommernes Advokatfirma AS
Respondent have a satisfactory working environment. This may be ensured through, for example, paid leave during the period the investigations are carried out, coverage of costs for legal assistance for both par - ties, and adjustments in work tasks and reporting lines. Consideration can also be given to whether the employer should obtain external assistance to handle the notice of concern.
investigations as part of their work duties. Failure to comply with such reasonable instructions may con - stitute a breach of employment obligations and could potentially lead to disciplinary measures, including termination in serious cases. However, this obligation has important limitations. Employees retain the right against self-incrimination, and they cannot be compelled to provide information that might expose them to criminal liability. Addition - ally, employees have the right to be accompanied by legal counsel or other representatives during inter - views. For non-employees or external witnesses, investiga - tors have no legal authority to compel participation. In such cases, investigators must rely on voluntary co- operation and may need to adjust their investigation methodology accordingly, potentially seeking alterna - tive sources of information or evidence. 3.3 Format Norwegian law and practice permit interviews to be conducted remotely using video conferencing plat - forms such as Teams, Zoom or similar technologies. This flexibility has become increasingly common, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic, and is generally accepted as a legitimate method for con - ducting HR internal investigations. Remote interviews may be particularly appropriate in certain circumstances, such as when participants are located in different geographical areas, when health considerations make in-person meetings inadvisable or when scheduling constraints make remote partici - pation more practical. Investigators should consider several factors when deciding whether to conduct interviews remotely: • the sensitivity and complexity of the allegations, which may favour in-person interviews to ensure better communication and rapport; • technical requirements and the interviewee’s com - fort with technology; • the need to ensure confidentiality and prevent unauthorised recording or observation, including
3. Interviews and Fact-Finding 3.1 Interviewees
In Norwegian HR internal investigations, the pool of interviewees typically depends on the nature and complexity of the allegations. The primary subjects of interviews include the Reporter, the Respondent and any relevant witnesses who may have observed the conduct in question or have knowledge of the cir - cumstances. The number of witnesses interviewed varies signifi - cantly from case to case. In straightforward matters involving isolated incidents, investigators may inter - view only a few key witnesses whereas in complex cases involving systemic issues, workplace culture problems, or allegations affecting multiple employees, the number of witnesses can be substantially higher. Investigators typically prioritise interviewing individu - als who have direct knowledge of the events, those who may have witnessed relevant behaviour, and persons who can provide context about workplace dynamics or the Respondent’s conduct patterns. The selection of interviewees should be proportionate to the seriousness of the allegations and necessary to ensure a thorough investigation. 3.2 Participation Under Norwegian law, employers have limited recourse when employees refuse to participate in HR internal investigations. However, the employment relationship creates certain obligations that can be leveraged. For employees, the duty of loyalty ( lojalitetsplikt ) under the employment contract typically requires co- operation with legitimate workplace investigations. Employers can instruct employees to participate in
289 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook