MAINSYSTEMS 
classify communications by substance
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
In this video we will work through a concrete decision: classify communications by substance. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. Initial classification identifies the proper procedure and prevents unjustified delay. One event may concern several legal regimes. Classification follows substance and may change with new information. Referral does not justify unrestricted sharing.
Employment disputes, service complaints and protected reports may reach one channel. A title does not determine procedure. Other remedies may apply beyond TÕRTKS. Handle out-of-scope concerns under the appropriate basis without automatically promising identical safeguards.
Apply the following rule: TÕRTKS section 2 covers work-related information about EU-law breaches in listed fields, including procurement, EU financial interests, data protection and EU restrictive measures. It does not automatically cover every employment dispute or corruption concern. KVS section 6 contains separate corruption-reporting protection that must be assessed on its own conditions.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Read the event and requested remedy. Check work context, subject matter and any connection to previous reporting. Explain the appropriate route and limit referral data to the competent recipient’s need. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.
3. Case Study & Compliance Action
A holiday dispute initially appears to be an HR matter. The person explains that changes followed an earlier report. Assessment adds possible retaliation. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.
The exercise is as follows: Does an HR-complaint heading exclude protection? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.
No. Assess substance and context, especially whether the disputed action relates to earlier protected reporting.
One mistake to avoid is: classifying solely by the heading.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically called protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?
Check the work-related connection, facts and TÕRTKS sections 2,3 and 13. Assess KVS section 6 separately where relevant. A form label does not confer every right. Identify an appropriate alternative route and limit disclosure if another procedure applies.