A union representative assisted a colleague at a meeting attended, among others, by an HR manager, during which the colleague received a formal warning. The following day, the union representative sent an email to a manager within the company criticizing the HR manager’s conduct during the meeting.
The email constituted a whistleblowing report
The Supreme Court held that the email constituted a whistleblowing report within the meaning of the Norwegian Working Environment Act. The Court found that the email expressed more than mere disagreement with the company's decision to issue a warning to the colleague. It described conduct that, if established, would be contrary to a provision in the company’s internal regulations requiring considerate and proper behaviour.
The Supreme Court based its decision on the broad scope of the whistleblowing concept under the Working Environment Act. The concept encompasses statements made by employees—including union representatives—that must reasonably be understood as reporting a censurable or objectionable matter within the undertaking. Such objectionable matters include conduct that is contrary to legal rules, written ethical guidelines adopted by the employer, or ethical standards that enjoy broad acceptance in society.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had been based on the premise that the email did not constitute a whistleblowing report, was therefore set aside. It will now be for the Court of Appeal to determine whether the company breached the prohibition against retaliation towards the union representative and, if so, to assess any compensation for non-economic loss.
One Supreme Court justice dissented and took the view that the email did not amount to a whistleblowing report.
The judgment clarifies the scope and meaning of the whistleblowing concept under the Norwegian Working Environment Act.
Source: Supreme Court
Martin Edelsteen Woll
mwoll@melo.no
+47 414 87 832
