Supreme Court ruling on whistleblowing

12 February 2024 2 min read

By Nina Wedsted

At a glance

  • The Supreme Court addressed whether an e-mail sent from an employee representative to a manager in the company, constituted whistleblowing under the Working Environment Act (WEA).
  • The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the employee representative and concluded that the e-mail met the requirements for whistleblowing.

The Supreme Court addressed whether an e-mail sent from an employee representative to a manager in the company constituted whistleblowing under section 2 A-1 and 2 A-2 of the WEA. The employee representative made a claim for redress and compensation under the WEA.

The employee representative had assisted a work colleague in a meeting with a HR manager. On the following day, the employee representative sent an e-mail to a manager in the company, in which he criticised the HR manager’s behavior in the meeting. In a later meeting, the employee representative received a written warning as a result of the e-mail he sent, after which he was reassigned.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the employee representative and concluded that the e-mail met the requirements for whistleblowing. The Supreme Court proceedings were confined to determining whether the email from the shop steward should be regarded as ‘a report concerning issues of concern’ as defined by the Working Environment Act.

The Supreme Court judgment clarifies that there is no public interest requirement for internal whistleblowing. Additionally, it is important to highlight that the Supreme Court determined the limitation against whistleblowing concerning ‘own employment’ to not be relevant.  In this case, the employee representative had not raised concerns about their personal employment. This interpretation implies that matters that are worthy of criticism which only concern one employee, are covered by the whistleblowing rules when reported by an employee representative addressing matters of concern.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the employee was protected from any form of retaliation from the employer.

More to explore

SEC steps up enforcement of rule 21F-17 Whistleblower Protections

SEC steps up enforcement of rule 21F-17 Whistleblower Protections

Based on recent enforcement activity by the Securities and Exchange Commission, employers are encouraged to review their agreements, policies, and procedures to ensure they do...

Key plans for Labour Inspection for 2024

Key plans for Labour Inspection for 2024

On 5 February 2024, the Ministry of Employment and Labor released its labour inspection plans for 2024.

Canada’s Supply Chains Act: What to consider when preparing your first report‎

Canada’s Supply Chains Act: What to consider when preparing your first report‎

Public Safety Canada has released long-awaited guidance for businesses subject to the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains, which came into force on...

Supply Chain Due Diligence Act in the financial sector

Supply Chain Due Diligence Act in the financial sector

It is essential to obtain expertise regarding the implementation of Supply Chain Due Diligence Act under employment law, in particular with regard to the financial sector.

Friendly Company accreditation introduced

Friendly Company accreditation introduced

To encourage equity between men and women in the workplace, on 20 September 2023, Law 14.682/2023 was published which created the Women's Friendly Company seal ( Empresa Amiga...

One click closer to website accessibility guidance – DOJ proposes new rule for state and local governments

One click closer to website accessibility guidance – DOJ proposes new rule for state and local governments

On 25 July 2023, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a proposed rule to improve digital access to services that state and local governments offer on websites or mobile...