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 helps choose a procedure and prevents unjustified delay. One event can engage several regimes. Assessment may change with new information. Referral does not authorise unrestricted sharing.
Employment disputes, service complaints and protected reports may arrive together. The heading does not determine procedure. Other remedies may exist outside statutory features. Do not automatically promise identical safeguards to every submission.
Apply the following rule: The law covers work-related information about breaches that may harm the public interest. It is not limited to the Directive’s listed EU-law fields. Purely personal grievances and knowingly false information are excluded; sections 2–3 also contain specific limits.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Read events and requested remedy. Check work context, public interest and links to previous reporting. Explain the appropriate route and disclose only necessary referral data. Document separate issues within one submission. 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 seems an HR matter. The person explains that changes followed an earlier report, adding possible adverse consequences to the assessment. 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 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 content and context, especially links to earlier protected reporting.
One mistake to avoid is: classifying only by heading.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically recognised as protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?
Check work context, possible public-interest harm, belief in truth and statutory conditions. A category does not replace sections 1–3 assessment. A personal complaint may also contain a public-interest breach; assess facts rather than title. Record reasons and necessary clarification.