Interim measures: protecting the reporter without prejudging the respondent

The complaint has just arrived. The reporter still answers to the respondent, they share an office, and the investigation will take at least three weeks. Doing nothing is a risk; doing too much, another. Interim measures exist for that interval, and their logic differs from that of a sanction.

What they are and what they are not

An interim measure protects the integrity of the process and of the people while the investigation runs. It is not a punishment, it does not anticipate the conclusion, and it must not be perceived as such. That distinction is not rhetorical: in Chile, the Karin Act requires immediate protective measures; in Peru, the regulation sets three business days to order them. But in every jurisdiction, a measure that de facto punishes the respondent before concluding becomes an argument against the company.

The criteria that order the decision

• Reporting line. If the reporter answers to the respondent, separating the chain of command is almost always necessary.
• Retaliation risk. Assessed on facts: access to evaluations, shift assignment, hiring decisions.
• Proportionality. The least intrusive measure that achieves the goal. A reporting change before a suspension; a paid suspension before an unpaid one.
• Neutrality. If someone must move, the first option is to move the respondent, not the reporter. Relocating the victim reads as punishment.

How it is documented

Each measure is recorded with date, grounds, scope and expected duration, and communicated in writing to those affected in neutral language: "while the procedure is under way," never "because of the reported facts." At the close of the investigation the measure is lifted or made permanent by reasoned decision, not by inertia. An interim measure still in force six months later is a sanction without process.

← All insights