28 min
The Threshold for Whistleblowing in Norway Juspod
-
- Education
The ruling from the Norwegian Supreme Court in Case 2023 2430 A.
A union representative assisted a work colleague in a meeting with, among others, an H R manager, where the colleague was given a warning. The next day, the employee representative sent an email to a manager in the company, criticising the H R manager's conduct in the meeting. The email read:
“Hello. See appendix above. Was at a meeting with "I" regarding personnel matter between supervisor and employee yesterday. Is slightly shocked about how "I", with his vague information, repeatedly harassed F with claims that "I" and H had a source that was credible and that F's explanation was a lie.
F has consistently denied guilt in the case. F has been employed by Nortura for 42 years, he was given a verbal warning without the opportunity to defend himself.
"I" believed that this warning was the company's attitude on the matter. The warning was completed when F and "I" came to the meeting. That is, we got the impression that it didn't matter what we meant in the case.
Is this the way Nortura wants to appear? Judge, Jury, Executioner for his employees??? So let's hope that their whistleblowers spoke the truth. Innocent until proven otherwise????”
The Supreme Court has concluded that the email is a notification under the Working Environment Act, as it expresses more than that the employee representative disagrees with the company's warning to the colleague.
It describes conduct that would be contrary to a rule in the company's labor regulations regarding considerate and proper conduct. The Supreme Court is based on the fact that the concept of warning in the Working Environment Act is broad and includes statements made by employees – including employee representatives – that must be interpreted in such a way that they report censurable conditions in the enterprise.
Censurable conditions are matters that contravene legal rules, written ethical guidelines in the enterprise or ethical norms that are widely supported in society. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which was based on the fact that the email is not a notification, was therefore quashed.
It will now be up to the Court of Appeal to decide whether the company has breached the prohibition on retaliation against the employee representative, and if necessary award compensatory damages. One Supreme Court justice dissented, saying the email did not constitute a notification.
The judgment clarifies the content of the Working Environment Act's concept of warning.
You´ll find the sections about whistleblowing in chapter 2A here:
https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-62
The ruling from the Norwegian Supreme Court in Case 2023 2430 A.
A union representative assisted a work colleague in a meeting with, among others, an H R manager, where the colleague was given a warning. The next day, the employee representative sent an email to a manager in the company, criticising the H R manager's conduct in the meeting. The email read:
“Hello. See appendix above. Was at a meeting with "I" regarding personnel matter between supervisor and employee yesterday. Is slightly shocked about how "I", with his vague information, repeatedly harassed F with claims that "I" and H had a source that was credible and that F's explanation was a lie.
F has consistently denied guilt in the case. F has been employed by Nortura for 42 years, he was given a verbal warning without the opportunity to defend himself.
"I" believed that this warning was the company's attitude on the matter. The warning was completed when F and "I" came to the meeting. That is, we got the impression that it didn't matter what we meant in the case.
Is this the way Nortura wants to appear? Judge, Jury, Executioner for his employees??? So let's hope that their whistleblowers spoke the truth. Innocent until proven otherwise????”
The Supreme Court has concluded that the email is a notification under the Working Environment Act, as it expresses more than that the employee representative disagrees with the company's warning to the colleague.
It describes conduct that would be contrary to a rule in the company's labor regulations regarding considerate and proper conduct. The Supreme Court is based on the fact that the concept of warning in the Working Environment Act is broad and includes statements made by employees – including employee representatives – that must be interpreted in such a way that they report censurable conditions in the enterprise.
Censurable conditions are matters that contravene legal rules, written ethical guidelines in the enterprise or ethical norms that are widely supported in society. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which was based on the fact that the email is not a notification, was therefore quashed.
It will now be up to the Court of Appeal to decide whether the company has breached the prohibition on retaliation against the employee representative, and if necessary award compensatory damages. One Supreme Court justice dissented, saying the email did not constitute a notification.
The judgment clarifies the content of the Working Environment Act's concept of warning.
You´ll find the sections about whistleblowing in chapter 2A here:
https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-62
28 min