The legal industry's attempt to weaken employees' whistleblowing protection
There is intense lobbying from employers and employment law lawyers, who through various newspaper articles are trying to weaken employees' whistleblowing protection in working life.
NITO represents 110,000 potential whistleblowers and sees it as critical to protect those who dare to speak out about unsustainable conditions in the workplace," says Mariann Næss, lawyer at NITO.
The debate should be about strengthening the culture of free speech in the workplace, not weakening the protection of those who dare to blow the whistle.
Mariann Næss
Those who want to remove the whistleblowing rules from the Working Environment Act claim that the provisions are being abused by dissatisfied employees, and that the number of whistleblowers has increased," she says.
- They claim that the whistleblowing system imposes large costs on employers and escalates conflicts instead of promoting dialogue.
No more notifications
Fafo figures refute these claims. There are no more people reporting today than there were 10-12 years ago, and the number of working environment reports has not increased," says Marianne Kjellsen, lawyer at NITO.
"The whistleblowing rules are designed to protect the few who dare to speak up, and ensure a safe climate of expression in the workplace," she points out.
Does not require expensive investigations
The law does not require expensive investigations, only that employers conduct a proper investigation based on the seriousness of the case. Employers are responsible for deciding whether a case is a whistleblower or not – not the employees," says Mariann Næss.
Kjellsen and Næss point out that it is the practice of the whistleblowing rules that is the problem, not the rules themselves. Employers must have the expertise to handle whistleblowers correctly and professionally. Many conflicts could have been resolved early if employers took action, instead of them developing into serious whistleblowing cases.
Need for expertise
- Fafo CEO Sissel Trygstad has stated that the real problem is those who do not dare to blow the whistle, often for fear of reprisals. If whistleblowing protection is weakened, fewer people will dare to speak up, and the consequences for the working environment and society will be far more serious than the costs of legal assistance," says Kjellsen.
- The debate should be about strengthening the culture of free speech in the workplace, not weakening the protection of those who dare to blow the whistle. Competence building and good, concrete routines are crucial to ensure a safe working environment," says Næss.