When Worlds Collide: Navigating the Intersection of Employment, Business Crime and Regulatory Risk

What happens when a workplace crisis becomes a criminal matter? When a whistleblower threatens to go to the press? When the decisions your HR team makes today end up scrutinised by the SFO tomorrow? These are not hypotheticals. They are the realities that modern businesses face, and they demand a joined-up response.

On 4 June, Linklaters brought together a panel of experts across employment law, business crime, regulatory and crisis communications to tackle precisely these questions and unpack the knotty intersections that arise when a workplace investigation tips into a multi-faceted crisis.

The stakes have never been higher

A key theme emerging from the discussion was that the stakes have never been higher. The extension of the "senior manager" test for corporate criminal liability — coming into force this month — significantly widens the pool of employees whose criminal acts can be attributed to the company. Combined with incoming Employment Rights Act reforms (including the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal reducing to six months and the compensation cap going in January 2027), the cost of mishandling an investigation is rising sharply.

Five crunch points: countless opportunities to get it wrong—and how to get it right

During the session, the panel walked through five critical junctures in an investigation lifecycle where pitfalls can happen:

1. The trigger and first 48 hours: the instinct to act immediately runs headlong into the need for strategic thought. Suspension decisions, evidence preservation, duty of care to individuals — the calls you make in the early days are difficult to undo.

2. Scoping, privilege and who investigates: initial decisions on the architecture of the investigation can set you up for success or failure.  

3. Interviews: where employment rights, criminal exposure and regulatory accountability converge most acutely. The panel explored why, in particular circumstances, the best outcome might be that an interviewee (on advice) says nothing at all.

4. Investigation findings and next steps: disciplinary outcomes, mutually agreed exits, and a rapidly shifting landscape on NDAs as the government consults on restricting their use in harassment and discrimination cases.

5. Disclosure and the endgame: voluntary versus compelled production, data subject access requests as a tactical tool for departing employees, and litigation disclosure of investigation materials.

The headline takeaway

The headline takeaway from the discussion was clear: keep all three lanes: employment; business crime; and regulatory, talking to each other throughout. Every decision in the employment track may one day need to be justified to a court, a regulator, or the press.

If this session raises questions relevant to your organisation, please get in touch with our team.