No trench coat required: Belgium’s new rules on workplace investigations

By Marga Caproni and Rob Hermans on September 28, 2026 Posted in Workplace Investigations

On 16 December 2024, Belgium’s Private Investigations Act (the “PIA”) entered into force, replacing the Private Detectives Act of 1991. While this may sound like news for the detective industry only, the scope of the PIA is considerably wider. In fact, the most significant innovation in the PIA does not concern private detectives at all, but the companies that instruct them. Any business that conducts workplace investigations in-house may fall within the scope of the PIA and become subject to licensing requirements and procedural obligations.

In this first of three blogs, we set out the key provisions in the PIA and why internal workplace investigations may fall within its scope and the licensing requirements that follow.

What counts as a private investigation under the PIA?

The PIA defines private investigation activities by reference to four cumulative criteria. Such activities must:

be carried out by a natural person;
be undertaken on behalf of a principal;
involve the gathering of intelligence obtained by the processing of information about natural or legal persons, or the circumstances concerning acts committed by them; and
be carried out for the purpose of providing that intelligence to the principal, either to safeguard the principal’s interests in the context of an actual or potential conflict, or to trace missing persons or lost or stolen goods.

This definition is sufficiently broad to capture most internal investigations within companies. For example, when an employer investigates suspected fraud, theft, harassment or other misconduct by an employee, it is gathering information about a person in order to safeguard its interests in the context of an actual or potential conflict. Where such activity is organised on a structural basis, which is already the case where investigative tasks form part of the job description of a single employee, the business operates an “internal investigation service” within the meaning of the PIA.

Investigations that are carried out by a group function on behalf of affiliated companies within a multinational group are treated as being carried out for the business’s own purposes rather than for third parties. As a result, compliance, internal audit, security and HR teams investigating matters involving employees in Belgium may need to comply with the PIA, even where the relevant investigation function is located outside Belgium.

Not all workplace investigations undertaken by an employer fall within the scope of the PIA. Certain activities are excluded, including the typical reference checks by HR on job applicants as well as investigations carried out in performance of a legal obligation. This may include some whistleblowing investigations, provided they fall strictly within the scope of the Belgian Whistleblowing Act. The scope of this Act is quite narrow however and in practice many employers operate reporting channels that cover a broader range of concerns than the legislation requires. Furthermore, investigations that start with a report of whistleblowing regularly expand beyond that. If an investigation goes beyond what is required to discharge the relevant legal obligation, or where matters fall outside the scope of an applicable exclusion, full PIA compliance may be required.

Licensing requirements

Under the PIA, private investigation activities, whether by a private investigation company or an internal investigations service, require a license from the Belgian Ministry of the Interior. This obligation to obtain a license may create challenges for multinational companies, as they are more likely to organise their investigation function at group level, outside of Belgium. As we highlighted in a previous blog, such licences are granted for a renewable period of five years and will only be awarded if the members of the investigating team are Belgian nationals or have their main residence in the EEA or Switzerland.

For EEA groups of companies, therefore, there is a potential way out: a license for an internal investigation service can be obtained without an operating seat in Belgium because the Belgian authorities will take into account the guarantees provided in another EEA Member State. For internal investigation functions based outside the EEA, however, no such exceptions are provided, and other avenues will need to be considered to conduct the investigation lawfully. Depending on the circumstances, these may include instructing a licensed investigation company, or having the investigation conducted by external counsel.

The HR exception

HR professionals who carry out investigative activities on behalf of their own employer (legal entity) in the context of an “incident investigation” concerning the employer’s own employees are not required to hold an identification card and are therefore exempt from the associated licensing requirements. However, all other provisions of the PIA continue to apply in full.

The PIA does not define the term ‘incident investigation’, but the explanatory memorandum to the Act indicates that following the identification or suspicion of misconduct such an investigation may include, amongst other things, the analysis of CCTV footage, the retrieval and examination of access control data, the reading of electronic locks or badge readers, and interviewing colleagues.

Without a clear definition of this exception, challenges are to be expected, particularly from employees seeking to have investigation findings excluded as evidence in dismissal proceedings. Employers should therefore assess very carefully whether an investigation falls within the limits of this exception, which must be interpreted narrowly.

In our next blog in this series, we will look at how an investigation under the PIA must be conducted: the role of the GDPR, prohibited fields of investigation, interview rules, the rights of the data subject and the consequences of non-compliance.

To discuss how the Belgian Private Investigations Act may affect your operations and how we can assist your business, please reach out to Marga Caproni, Partner and head of the Belgian Labour & Employment practice.

Spain introduces new employer information obligations: In force from 5 October 2026

By Ignacio Regojo and Laura Iturrioz Muñoz on September 21, 2026 Posted in General

Spain has adopted Royal Decree 723/2026 of 9 September 2026, introducing a revised framework governing the information that employers must provide to employees regarding the essential terms of their employment and their principal working conditions. The measure partially implements EU Directive 2019/1152 on transparent and predictable working conditions. The Decree was published in the Spanish Official State Gazette on 15 September 2026 and will come into force on 5 October 2026, replacing Royal Decree 1659/1998. These changes represent a significant expansion of the information obligations on employers.

Under the new framework, the Spanish Ministry of Labor and Social Economy, through the Spanish Public Employment Service, must make available an official information document designed to assist employers in complying with these new requirements. This has not yet been published. Employers will be required to comply with the new information obligations from 5 October, regardless of whether the government has published the official information document by then.

Geeks Ltd v Watts: Do training cost clawbacks fall within the restraint of trade regime? (UK)

By Laura Nelson on September 17, 2026 Posted in General

Wooden gavel on table. Attorney working in courtroom.

Most readers of this blog will be familiar with the concept of “restraint of trade” and the public policy reasons why the law regulates it so closely, namely that individuals should be free to use their skills and earn a living without unnecessary restrictions.

The doctrine applies around the world to a greater or a lesser degree – with different rules applying depending on both the jurisdiction and the legal situation. In the UK employment context, the general starting point is that any contractual term which restricts an employee’s freedom to carry out their trade will be void, unless (a) it protects the employer’s legitimate business interests; and (b) it goes no further than reasonably necessary to do so. The reasonableness of any such clause has to be viewed at the date of signing and without the glorious benefit of hindsight. It is for this reason that so much ink is spilled on the proper drafting of post-termination restrictive covenants (e.g. non-competition, non-solicitation of clients and customers, etc.) which are bespoke both to the particular role an individual carries out and the consequent risk to the business should that individual leave. This reflects the basic principle that a court will not enforce these, unless the employer can show (as a minimum) that that they satisfy both (a) and (b) above.

Pay Transparency Directive: FAQs (as in “Frequently Asked, Quietly Unanswered”)?

By Marga Caproni on September 8, 2026 Posted in Pay Transparency

Over the summer, the European Commission published some frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the European Pay Transparency Directive.

By way of reminder, the Directive had to be transposed into national law by 7 June of this year, but only a few Member States met this deadline.

Are the 13 pages of FAQs worth your time? Not really, so we have summarised the most interesting takeaways for you:

The FAQs confirm that the information that must be provided to job applicants on expected pay does not necessarily have to be included in the job vacancy notice, but it must be provided prior to the job interview.

Obligations under the Directive do not apply to genuinely self-employed workers. However, bogus self-employed workers (i.e. those that really ought to be considered employees) may be caught.

Quitting Cold Turkey: Federal Agencies Suspend Enforcement of Back-Pay Requirement for Employee Wellness Incentives, Including Tobacco Cessation Programs (US)

By Mike Fussell on September 3, 2026 Posted in Benefits, Compliance, Employee Health/Welfare

For many employees, the benefits of maintaining a healthy lifestyle aren’t just physical; they are financial. Through health-contingent wellness programs, employers can offer monetary rewards or reduced health insurance costs to employees who achieve specified health-related goals. These programs may focus on nutrition, weight loss, tobacco cessation, fitness, substance abuse assistance, stress management, or general health education.

Second Circuit Rejects Application of NLRB’s Tesla Framework to Workplace Dress Code and Uniform Policies (US)

By Daniel Pasternak on September 2, 2026 Posted in Employment Policies, General, NLRB, Recent Cases, Unions

On September 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision that could make it easier for employers to defend workplace dress code and uniform policies against unfair labor practice challenges. In Siren Retail Corporation, d/b/a Starbucks Reserve Roastery v. NLRB, the court rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) current framework for evaluating employer policies that restrict employees’ ability to display union-related clothing, buttons, or insignia at work.

Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Religious Beliefs Snares Wildlife Department, Nets Win for Employees (US)

By Laura Lawless on August 25, 2026 Posted in Accommodation, COVID-19, Employment Law, Reasonable Adjustments, Religion, Religious Discrimination, Vaccine and Vaccination

A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Cherry et al. v Washington Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, et al., is a primer in employer obligations when reasonably accommodating employees’ religious beliefs.

In August 2021, the Governor of Washington mandated that nearly all State employees vaccinate against COVID-19 or face termination. Five Washington Fish & Wildlife Department employees sought exemption on religious grounds. Although the Department agreed their requests stemmed from their sincerely held religious beliefs, it nonetheless maintained that vaccination was required if they wished to remain in their current roles, which required work “in the physical presence of others.” All five employees offered to mask-and-distance, and some suggested telework. All employees also expressed interest in transferring to another job that would eliminate their religious conflict.

The Future of EEO-1 Reporting: Key Takeaways from the August 11 Hearing

By Peter Clouse on August 24, 2026 Posted in Compliance, Discrimination, EEOC, Employment Law, Title VII

Back in July, we discussed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) proposal to eliminate EEO-1 reporting requirements and the agency’s rationale for doing so. On August 11, the EEOC held a two-hour public hearing that brought together employers, academics, civil rights advocates, policy organizations, and a former EEOC General Counsel to weigh in on the proposal. While the testimony revealed sharp disagreements over the value of workforce demographic reporting, the arguments largely boiled down to a simple question: what happens when we stop counting?

New NLRB Majority Takes Shape: What’s Next?

By Chase Clark on August 11, 2026 Posted in Collective Bargaining, Employment Law, General, NLRA, NLRB, Unions

On August 7, 2026, the Senate confirmed current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) Member David Prouty to a second term – Member Prouty was first appointed to the Board in 2021 by President Biden – and confirmed James Macy to fill one of two vacant Board seats.

Mr. Macy’s appointment marks an important shift in the Board’s composition. Republican appointees now will hold a majority on the NLRB. Thus, the Board will almost certainly revisit and likely reverse or modify some of the controversial union-friendly decisions issued by prior Boards. (Until now, Republican appointees James Murphy and Scott Mayer have followed the Board’s long-standing practice of refraining from overturning precedent without at least three affirmative votes.)

Proposed changes to the Acas Code of Practice — an unexpected ally in tackling AI-inspired grievances?

By David Whincup on August 6, 2026 Posted in Employment Tribunal, Grievance, Mediation

Out of the blue last week came a formal consultation in relation to a proposed re-write of the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, the first major look at it in nearly 20 years.

The new Code contains 95 paragraphs to its predecessor’s 47, but just the last six of them usher in without fanfare what may be the biggest, perhaps only, positive change in recommended practice for employers in, well, ages. Businesses which fully grasp the opportunity which this change would present may laugh in the face of interminable AI-assisted grievances and cut through complaints of dubious good faith with renewed confidence that The Law will back them.

Superficially, the change is small – a simple transposition of the encouragement to address workplace grievances through mediation from the Foreword into the main body of the Code. That small change is nonetheless a very big deal because it brings mediation under the penalty regime attached to the Code, i.e. a possible 25% uplift or reduction in compensation for any unreasonable departure from that suggestion.

And the reason that matters is because (assuming the revised Code is implemented as it stands) employers should now regard mediation (including permutations such as facilitated conversations) as the default starting point, not just a possible outcome, in tackling a workplace dispute, to the extent that a failure to start there could lead directly to claims for an uplift in compensation against them. Enlightened employers may be there already, but the rest will now need to catch up quickly.