Whistleblowing is not putting up with violations or nonsense – it is an opportunity to prevent misuse and embezzlement of company or state funds, to ensure compliance with the law and human rights. The Whistleblowing Law provides for the protection of the whistleblower – a person who reports an observed violation that affects public interests.
Whistleblowing Act provides for six characteristics that must be met in order for a person’s submission to be recognized as a whistleblower’s report.
It is a:
- the application is submitted by a natural person;
- the person provides information about a possible violation;
- the possible violation may harm the public interest;
- the person considers the information provided to be true;
- the information is obtained in the work environment, performing work duties or establishing legal relationships related to the performance of work duties, or while in practice;
- the person could be adversely affected by the provision of this information.
Harm to public interests is one of the features that must match the information provided by the person in order for the submission to be recognized as a whistleblower’s report. However, what is the public interest in the context of whistleblowing?
The Whistleblowing Law lists a number of areas in which the observed violations should be specially raised. These can be, for example, envelope wages, bribery, discrimination, situations of conflict of interest and other violations in the areas mentioned in the first part of Article 3 of the law.
However, the list specified in the Whistleblowing Act is not exhaustive, and everyone is invited to raise the alarm about any violation observed in the work environment that may harm the public interest.
The State Chancellery explains that public interests include violations of Latvian and European Union legislation and there are both violations of norms and actions that are contrary to the purpose of the legislation. However, the question remains unanswered as to how a person can identify public interests in his specific experienced case.
“Delna” recommends looking at the element of public interest from the opposite side, that is, when answering the question of whether private interests are visible in the specific case.
It is important to remember that conduct that is primarily motivated by a personal grievance, personal disagreement, or personal gain is not whistleblowing. Reporting, for example, a personal dispute with an employer or a dispute between neighbors will not constitute whistleblowing. Therefore, if you can only identify an element of self-interest in a particular case when preparing to report, the situation is unlikely to meet one of the whistleblowing features (“may harm the public interest”).
It is also important to point out that the term “society” does not necessarily refer to the entire society as a whole.
In the sense of raising the alarm, damage to society can also refer to a certain part of society, for example, a collective of a company, a specific city, region or group of society. Likewise, the fact that the applicant is part of the affected society does not immediately mean that a larger part of society is not affected in the relevant case. The decisive element in identifying harm to society is the goal that a person’s whistleblower report can achieve – whether it can protect society from a specific violation.
Example: The neighbor has not cut the grass
Jānis and Pēteris are neighbors. Peter hasn’t cut the grass in his yard for a long time. Jānis has already pointed this out to Pēteris several times, but Pēteris has not acted and does not mow the grass. Jānis applies to the municipal police with a whistleblower’s report that Pēteris does not comply with the obligation to keep his property in order.
In the particular example, there is NO violation of public interest. Although Pēteris may have a statutory duty to take care of his own property, Jānis’ application is aimed at resolving personal disagreements in order to get Pēteris to mow the lawn. There is no element of wider public interest in whether or not Peter has cut the grass.
Example: discrimination in an employee selection competition
Anna applied for a job as a warehouse manager of a building materials store. She has worked in a similar position before. Juris, who has no previous work experience, also applied for this job. Anna was invited to an interview and got to know the workplace and job duties in person. However, until Juris applied for the position, he was hired without an interview. Anna suspects that the building material store has discriminated against Anna on the basis of her gender. Anna applies to the State Labor Inspectorate with a whistleblower’s report.
In this example, there IS an infringement of public interest. The prohibition of discrimination is a human right enshrined in the Constitution. It is in the public interest to prevent employers from discriminating or otherwise violating the human rights of potential employees. It is also in the public interest to create a labor market where every individual has equal opportunities and rights.
Identifying the public interest in a whistleblower report is an essential step towards better quality whistleblower reports. In addition, there is a need for greater public awareness of the signs of whistleblowing and under what circumstances and for what issues the whistleblowing system can be used. As public awareness increases, overall whistle-blowing statistics could also improve.
Next: Why can the alarm be raised only about the workplace?
