Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York, 18 December 1979
Introduction
On 18 December 1979, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It entered into force as an international treaty on 3 September 1981 after the twentieth country had ratified it. By the tenth anniversary of the Convention in 1989, almost one hundred nations have agreed to be bound by its provisions.
The Convention was the culmination of more than thirty years of work by the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, a body established in 1946 to monitor the situation of women and to promote women’s rights. The Commission’s work has been instrumental in bringing to light all the areas in which women are denied equality with men. These efforts for the advancement of women have resulted in several declarations and conventions, of which the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is the central and most comprehensive document.
Among the international human rights treaties, the Convention takes an important place in bringing the female half of humanity into the focus of human rights concerns. The spirit of the Convention is rooted in the goals of the United Nations: to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity,v and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women. The present document spells out the meaning of equality and how it can be achieved. In so doing, the Convention establishes not only an international bill of rights for women, but also an agenda for action by countries to guarantee the enjoyment of those rights.
In its preamble, the Convention explicitly acknowledges that “extensive discrimination against women continues to exist”, and emphasizes that such discrimination “violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity”. As defined in article 1, discrimination is understood as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made o.1 the basis of sex…in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field”. The Convention gives positive affirmation to the principle of equality by requiring States parties to take “all appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men”(article 3).
The agenda for equality is specified in fourteen subsequent articles. In its approach, the Convention covers three dimensions of the situation of women. Civil rights and the legal status of women are dealt with in great detail. In addition, and unlike other human rights treaties, the Convention is also concerned with the dimension of human reproduction as well as with the impact of cultural factors on gender relations.
The legal status of women receives the broadest attention. Concern over the basic rights of political participation has not diminished since the adoption of the Convention on the Political Rights of Women in 1952. Its provisions, therefore, are restated in article 7 of the present document, whereby women are guaranteed the rights to vote, to hold public office and to exercise public functions. This includes equal rights for women to represent their countries at the international level (article 8). The Convention on the Nationality of Married Women – adopted in 1957 – is integrated under article 9 providing for the statehood of women, irrespective of their marital status. The Convention, thereby, draws attention to the fact that often women’s legal status has been linked to marriage, making them dependent on their husband’s nationality rather than individuals in their own right. Articles 10, 11 and 13, respectively, affirm women’s rights to non-discrimination in education, employment and economic and social activities. These demands are given special emphasis with regard to the situation of rural women, whose particular struggles and vital economic contributions, as noted in article 14, warrant more attention in policy planning. Article 15 asserts the full equality of women in civil and business matters, demanding that all instruments directed at restricting women’s legal capacity ”shall be deemed null and void”. Finally, in article 16, the Convention returns to the issue of marriage and family relations, asserting the equal rights and obligations of women and men with regard to choice of spouse, parenthood, personal rights and command over property.
Aside from civil rights issues, the Convention also devotes major attention to a most vital concern of women, namely their reproductive rights. The preamble sets the tone by stating that “the role of women in procreation should not be a basis for discrimination”. The link between discrimination and women’s reproductive role is a matter of recurrent concern in the Convention. For example, it advocates, in article 5, ”a proper understanding of maternity as a social function”, demanding fully shared responsibility for child-rearing by both sexes. Accordingly, provisions for maternity protection and child-care are proclaimed as essential rights and are incorporated into all areas of the Convention, whether dealing with employment, family law, health core or education. Society’s obligation extends to offering social services, especially child-care facilities, that allow individuals to combine family responsibilities with work and participation in public life. Special measures for maternity protection are recommended and “shall not be considered discriminatory”. (article 4). “The Convention also affirms women’s right to reproductive choice. Notably, it is the only human rights treaty to mention family planning. States parties are obliged to include advice on family planning in the education process (article l O.h) and to develop family codes that guarantee women’s rights “to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to hove access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights” (article 16.e).
The third general thrust of the Convention aims at enlarging our understanding of the concept of human rights, as it gives formal recognition to the influence of culture and tradition on restricting women’s enjoyment of their fundamental rights. These forces take shape in stereotypes, customs and norms which give rise to the multitude of legal, political and economic constraints on the advancement of women. Noting this interrelationship, the preamble of the Convention stresses “that a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality of men and women”. States parties are therefore obliged to work towards the modification of social and cultural patterns of individual conduct in order to eliminate “prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women” (article 5). And Article 1O.c. mandates the revision of textbooks, school programmes and teaching methods with a view to eliminating stereotyped concepts in the field of education. Finally, cultural patterns which define the public realm as a man’s world and the domestic sphere as women’s domain are strongly targeted in all of the Convention’s provisions that affirm the equal responsibilities of both sexes in family life and their equal rights with regard to education and employment. Altogether, the Convention provides a comprehensive framework for challenging the various forces that have created and sustained discrimination based upon sex.
The implementation of the Convention is monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The Committee’s mandate and the administration of the treaty are defined in the Articles 17 to 30 of the Convention. The Committee is composed of 23 experts nominated by their Governments and elected by the States parties as individuals “of high moral standing and competence in the field covered by the Convention”.
At least every four years, the States parties are expected to submit a national report to the Committee, indicating the measures they have adopted to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. During its annual session, the Committee members discuss these reports with the Government representatives and explore with them areas for further action by the specific country. The Committee also makes general recommendations to the States parties on matters concerning the elimination of discrimination against women.
The full text of the Convention is set out herein:
Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women
The States Parties to the present Convention,
Noting that the Charter of the United Nations reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women,
Noting that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, including distinction based on sex,
Noting that the States Parties to the International Covenants on Human Rights have the obligation to ensure the equal rights of men and women to enjoy all economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights,
Considering the international conventions concluded under the auspices of the United Nations and the specialized agencies promoting equality of rights of men and women,
Noting also the resolutions, declarations and recommendations adopted by the United Nations and the specialized agencies promoting equality of rights of men and women,
Concerned, however, that despite these various instruments extensive discrimination against women continues to exist,
Recalling that discrimination against women violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity, is an obstacle to the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of their countries, hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of their countries and of humanity,
Concerned that in situations of poverty women have the least access to food, health, education, training and opportunities for employment and other needs,
Convinced that the establishment of the new international economic order based on equity and justice will contribute significantly towards the promotion of equality between men and women,
Emphasizing that the eradication of apartheid, all forms of racism, racial discrimination, colonialism, neo-colonialism, aggression, foreign occupation and domination and interference in the internal affairs of States is essential to the full enjoyment of the rights of men and women,
Affirming that the strengthening of international peace and security, the relaxation of international tension, mutual co-operation among all States irrespective of their social and economic systems, general and complete disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control, the affirmation of the principles of justice, equality and mutual benefit in relations among countries and the realization of the right of peoples under alien and colonial domination and foreign occupation to self-determination and independence, as well as respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, will promote social progress and development and as a consequence will contribute to the attainment of full equality between men and women,
Convinced that the full and complete development of a country, the welfare of the world and the cause of peace require the maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields,
Bearing in mind the great contribution of women to the welfare of the family and to the development of society, so far not fully recognized, the social significance of maternity and the role of both parents in the family and in the upbringing of children, and aware that the role of women in procreation should not be a basis for discrimination but that the upbringing of children requires a sharing of responsibility between men and women and society as a whole,
Aware that a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women,
Determined to implement the principles set forth in the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and, for that purpose, to adopt the measures required for the elimination of such discrimination in all its forms and manifestations,
Have agreed on the following:
PART I
Article I
For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “discrimination against women” shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.
Article 2
States Parties condemn discrimination against women in all its forms, agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women and, to this end, undertake: (a) To embody the principle of the equality of men and women in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation if not yet incorporated therein and to ensure, through law and other appropriate means, the practical realization of this principle;
(b) To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against women;
(c) To establish legal protection of the rights of women on an equal basis with men and to ensure through competent national tribunals and other public institutions the effective protection of women against any act of discrimination;
(d) To refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination against women and to ensure that public authorities and institutions shall act in conformity with this obligation;
(e) To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise;
(f) To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women;
(g) To repeal all national penal provisions which constitute discrimination against women.
Article 3
States Parties shall take in all fields, in particular in the political, social, economic and cultural fields, all appropriate measures, including legislation, to en sure the full development and advancement of women , for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.
Article 4
1. Adoption by States Parties of temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women shall not be considered discrimination as defined in the present Convention, but shall in no way entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate standards; these measures shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved.
2. Adoption by States Parties of special measures, including those measures contained in the present Convention, aimed at protecting maternity shall not be considered discriminatory.
Article 5
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures: (a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;
(b) To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
Article 6
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.
PART II
Article 7
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right: (a) To vote in all elections and public referenda and to be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies;
(b) To participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government;
(c) To participate in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country.
Article 8
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure to women, on equal terms with men and without any discrimination, the opportunity to represent their Governments at the international level and to participate in the work of international organizations.
Article 9
1. States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality. They shall ensure in particular that neither marriage to an alien nor change of nationality by the husband during marriage shall automatically change the nationality of the wife, render her stateless or force upon her the nationality of the husband.
2. States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children.
Workplace Law & Strategy
Insights. Advice. New Thinking.
Helensburgh Coal – is the death knell for outsourcing getting louder?
By Ben Dudley, Erin Hawthorne & Mick Moy on August 15, 2025
Posted in HR/IR Strategy, Workplace policy and process, Workplace reform
Two years ago, in a previous blog, we said the bell had not yet tolled for outsourcing. But that might be a gentle ringing you hear in the distance….
The High Court of Australia’s decision in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley & Ors [2025] HCA 29 (Helensburgh Coal case) has increased the risk profile of redundancy programs where other functions in the business are being performed by contractors. Businesses facing unfair dismissal claims may now have to convince the Fair Work Commission that it would not have been reasonable to make changes to their enterprise to “insource” those functions. A flow-on effect may be that businesses are less willing to take the risk associated with outsourcing work in the first place.
Why would an employer need to think about insourcing contractor work during a redundancy program?
Unfair dismissal claims cannot be made by an employee who is “genuinely redundant”. That depends (at least in part) on whether it would have been “reasonable in all the circumstances for the person to be redeployed”. Up until now, there was a general understanding that someone could only be redeployed if there were vacant employment positions to put them into, and that there was no need to create jobs.
However, the High Court has now confirmed “redeployment” is not limited in that way – it will include looking at whether the employer could reasonably have made changes to how it uses its workforce to operate its business, including whether it could free up work for the redundant employee to perform.
In the Helensburgh Coal case, this meant looking at the use of contractors. The employer had longstanding contractors who were continuing to provide services to the company, and the impacted employees argued that the company should insource that work to the redundant employees, who had the requisite skills and experience. The High Court’s decision means that the Fair Work Commission was permitted to examine whether it was reasonable for the company to cease using the contractors to do that work and use the impacted employees instead.
As a result, whether a “genuine redundancy” has occurred will in some cases now depend, at least in part, on the Fair Work Commission’s assessment of whether it would have been reasonable for the employer to reorganise its business to create jobs including by insourcing work performed by contractors.
What does this mean for outsourcing?
The decision does not mean that employers cannot outsource work or that there is a legal obligation in every situation to replace contractors or labour hire workers with employees whose positions are redundant. However, any employer who proceeds with redundancies while still using contractors or labour hire is likely to face higher risks of a dispute, even if the impacted employees would require some retraining to perform the relevant work.
In any dispute about “genuine redundancy”, the employee(s) or their union could seek access to detailed business records, and ask the Fair Work Commission to assess whether that evidence shows it would have been reasonable to decide not to use any contractors or to insource functions that would have provided the redundant employees with ongoing work.
We will need to wait to see how many cases end up in these kinds of disputes, and how many employers are willing to defend their ongoing use of contractors or outsourcing.
Will businesses still be able to justify the continuing use of contractors if they are reducing the number of employees?
The Helensburgh Coal case related to a particular situation where:
- the work being performed by the contractor workforce (conveyor belt maintenance) was work that was intimately connected with the work of the impacted employees;
- there was evidence that the impacted employees could have relatively easily undertaken that work – because they had worked for the contractor in the past and had experience doing the work that was being performed by the contractor workforce; and
- the Commission had determined that Helensburgh Coal was “not philosophically opposed to insource work by removing contractors”.
While each circumstance will be different, we expect that businesses going through redundancy programs will need to justify the ongoing use of contractors or labour hire by pointing to the reasons that:
- the use of contractors or labour hire to perform particular work remains important to the business’s operating model – this might relate, for instance, to the specialist skills required or the short-term or temporary nature of the tasks being performed by the contractor workforce. There might be other reasons too;
- the impacted employees could not perform the tasks being performed by the contractor workforce – for example, the employees might require technical qualifications or skills that would take many years to gain, or the work is irregular and sporadic.
If the employer does decide not to make a change to the way in which it operates its business, it will need to ensure the reasons for doing so are lawful, commercial and sensible, and should keep a careful record of them.
More generally, the decision emphasises the growing tension in Australian workplaces between:
- unions pursuing their preference for direct employment, including their aversion to outsourcing any aspect of a business’s operations; and
- business seeking more flexibility with how and when they organise their operations, and engage labour, in the face of fast-paced changes in the operating environment and ever-increasing regulatory complexity and fixed costs.
We expect to see more development, both in legislation and case law, in this area as employers and employees – and governments – grapple with these opposing forces.
Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Are Enforceable Undertakings available under HVNL in NSW? It depends.
By Nick Neil & Paul Cutrone on August 13, 2025
Posted in Health & Safety
If you’re an employer operating heavy vehicles in NSW, understanding how an Enforceable Undertaking (EU) works under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) could be critical to your legal strategy. When facing allegations of non-compliance, knowing who initiates the charge – and how that affects your legal options – can significantly impact strategic decision-making.
In the event of an alleged contravention of the HVNL, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) may accept an EU as an alternative to prosecution. There are detailed guidelines and discretionary factors the NHVR apply when considering EU proposals. In 2023-2024, 16 EUs were accepted.
EUs have long been a useful feature of responsive regulatory frameworks. In the context of the HVNL, they represent an opportunity for duty-holders who might otherwise be criminally convicted and punished, to instead implement safety programs in relation to transport activities relating to a heavy vehicle. Those programs can significantly improve safety outcomes of individuals working in such activities, and more generally, everyone else who use public roads on which heavy vehicles travel. Indeed, “promoting a strong safety outcome” and “broad transport community benefits” are key factors the NHVR consider when assessing EU proposals.
EUs are a legislative mechanism the NSW government would (presumably) want on the table for potential safety programs or initiatives that could significantly improve the sobering fatality and serious injury data for NSW roads: 352 lives lost in the last 12 months and 10695 serious injuries in the 12-month period ending September 2024.
But the NHVR EU Policy and Guidelines apply to the NHVR. It does not appear that the NSW Police – who also have responsibility for enforcing compliance with the HVNL in that jurisdiction – have their own published EU Policy and Guidelines in relation to HVNL offences.
In New South Wales, where the Police charge and prosecute alleged offences against the HVNL, police prosecutors can only accept an EU as an alternative to prosecution where they have the NSW Police Commissioner’s written authority to do so under s590A(10) of that law. While it may exist, we are unaware of any such written authority.
What does this mean? In a practical sense, it means if the NSW Police have laid charges against you for an alleged offence against the HVNL in that jurisdiction, the important remedy (or mechanism) of applying for an EU to achieve safety outcomes on public roads may be more challenging.
While the example above is NSW-centric, the HVNL operates in all Australian jurisdictions, except Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Police officers in these jurisdictions also have powers and functions (including enforcement powers) in respect of the HVNL. But the NHVR Compliance and Enforcement Policy expressly states that it does not affect the exercise of any applicable discretion by police officers exercising powers under the HVNL.
The ‘take-home message’ – it is important to understand not just the law, but also who is enforcing it and how that agency exercises its regulatory and prosecutorial discretion. Those factors can change what legal options are available to you and what strategy to deploy in a particular case.
Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Managing cross border sexual harassment investigations in Australia and Asia––10 key considerations for employers (Part 3)
By Erin Hawthorne, Kathryn Weaver, Leon Mao & Rebecca Lim on June 17, 2025
Posted in Cross border advice and transactions
In Part 3 of our series, we’ll look at the standard of proof, the conduct of interviews, how each country aims to protect confidentiality and whistleblowers, and privacy. (Part 1 covers the definition of ‘workplace’ harassment, investigation scoping and legal privilege. Part 2 covers who forms part of an investigation team, how location affects which laws apply to an investigation, notification and timing requirements).
#7 – What standard of proof is used in investigations?
The standard of proof used in workplace investigations is crucial for determining the outcome of allegations.
The civil standard of proof is consistent across Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore and PRC – if this is applied, then the evidence must show that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the conduct occurred.
Unless policies, workplace-specific laws or contracts require a different approach, cross-border investigations in these countries can use the same standard when making findings based on the evidence.
#8 – How should interviews be conducted during investigations?
The interview process is a critical component of any investigation. It allows the investigator to uncover details and firsthand accounts in order to understand what occurred.
Witness selection should be based on whether they can be expected to provide relevant evidence. It is best practice to limit the interview list where possible, in order to reduce the risk of the accused’s ongoing employment becoming untenable by virtue of too many people knowing about the allegations. In some investigations, it will be necessary to interview a large number of people, given the nature of the allegations, but that is not always the case and careful thought should be given to keeping control of the interview list.
In Australia, for wellbeing reasons, it is best practice to allow a support person to accompany the witness and (in some cases) employers may permit union or legal representation. This is not the case in Hong Kong, Singapore and the PRC, where witnesses are not legally permitted to be accompanied to the interview, neither is it common practice to allow this for wellbeing reasons. Recorded interviews require consent under some laws, ensuring that all parties are aware of and agree to the recording. Where recording is not consented to, it is important in all jurisdictions to take detailed notes of the interview. In the PRC, secret recordings of investigation interviews may be admissible in court (unless carried out in a private space such as a witness’s home), which is something to be mindful of when conducting investigations in the PRC.
#9 – How are confidentiality and whistleblower protections ensured?
Confidentiality and whistleblower protections are essential components of workplace investigations because when employees know their identity and information will be kept confidential, they are more likely to participate without fear of retaliation.
Australia has strict whistleblower protections. If a complaint includes ‘whistleblowing’ as defined under law, onerous confidentiality obligations limit both disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity and information that could lead to whistleblower identification. Investigation processes in Australia must be adapted to ensure that the investigation itself does not inadvertently breach whistleblower confidentiality protections, which can be a criminal offence. Australian law also protects people from victimisation or ‘adverse action’ in their employment.
In Hong Kong, there is no express protection for whistleblowers. In the anti-discrimination ordinances of Hong Kong, there is, however, protection against victimisation where an employee raises a complaint or claim related to a protected characteristic (which is limited to gender (including marital status, pregnancy and breastfeeding), race, disability and family status in Hong Kong. Similarly, in Singapore, there are no general whistleblower protection laws. However, the Workplace Fairness Act 2025 prohibits employers from retaliation against employees who have raised a discrimination or harassment-related grievance.
The PRC implements safeguards for whistleblowers and witnesses under confidentiality laws to protect their legitimate rights and interests, prevent retaliation and ensure their psychological and professional wellbeing.
#10 – How are data privacy and cross-border transfers managed?
Data privacy and cross-border transfers are critical considerations in workplace investigations.
In Australia, there are restrictions on use, disclosure and handling of data, including both ‘personal information’ under federal law and certain categories of ‘health information’ under federal and state laws. There are also restrictions on the transfer of data offshore and/or disclosure to third parties.
In Hong Kong, employers should check whether their existing Personal Information Collection Statement (PICS) is broad enough to cover the use, collection and transfer or employees’ personal data for the purpose of the investigation and also whether the witnesses (including the complainant and the accused) have been issued with the PICS. If not, employers could issue a new PICS for the purpose of the investigation, or could expressly seek the witnesses’ consent to the use of their personal data in this way (although consent is not required under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO) where a PICS has met all the necessary notification requirements, unless existing personal data will be used in a new way). The PDPO does not currently prevent or restrict the transfer of personal data overseas.
In Singapore, the requirements on the use, collection and disclosure of personal data fall under personal data protection legislation. In respect of cross-border transfer of personal data outside Singapore, the general rule is that personal data shall not be transferred outside Singapore except in accordance with the personal data protection legislation or if exempted by the Privacy Commission upon application.
In the PRC, the processing of personal data must meet specific conditions, including in relation to consent, security assessments and data protection agreements. The PRC framework is the strictest data transfer regulation in Asia Pacific.
Are there other measures that should be considered during investigations?
In Australia, suspension during an investigation can be considered, however any changes to complainants’ work conditions must be carefully managed to avoid unlawful adverse action. Providing wellbeing support is also essential to ensure that all affected employees receive the necessary assistance to prevent risks to work health and safety.
In Hong Kong and Singapore, suspension during an investigation is also contemplated where there are concerns around the integrity of the investigation being jeopardised by having the accused (and perhaps others) continuing to work during the investigation process, and also if there are concerns around personal safety/retaliation. Employers should be aware of the laws regarding suspension in these jurisdictions though, as these can affect how long the individual can be suspended for and what they are paid during the suspension. In the PRC, suspension is permitted as long as the employee continues to receive his/her normal salary during it.
We hope that our series of breaking down ten key aspects of cross border workplace investigations in APAC has been insightful. Our authors would be pleased to address any follow-up queries you may have.
