Organising categories and case assignment

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is organising categories and case assignment. By the end, you should be able to configure an assignment process that considers conflicts of interest. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. This course presents a configuration method, not an assertion about the functions of a particular UNOVOX account. Each setting should be linked to the procedure and tested with fictional information. A technical change can affect access, confidentiality or time calculations and therefore needs verification.

Categories help organise cases but must not automatically determine their legal validity. Assignment must consider competence and independence. Sending every report about a department to its manager may expose the whistleblower or assign the case to someone mentioned in it. Automation should support the team while allowing classification reviews and exceptions.

Apply the following rule: Article 3 covers specified areas including corruption, public procurement, data protection and the financial interests of the state. Employment law is not a separate general category. Article 3(2) allows certain lawful internal rules and ethical standards within the internal procedure, without applying Chapters 4 and 5. Article 4 includes work-related contexts before and after a relationship. Protection requires Article 6 conditions and the appropriate reporting route.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Create understandable categories and an option for users who cannot classify their report. Define restricted initial triage and an alternative route for conflicts. Test reports involving a manager, the channel officer and several subject matters. Record category changes and reassignment reasons without reproducing sensitive information in unnecessary notifications. 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 report about the procurement director is automatically assigned to that director because procurement was selected. The rule is replaced with an initial conflict check and assignment to an authorised person. 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: Is a correct category sufficient for correct assignment? 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. The recipient’s impartiality and need for access must also be assessed. Automation should support rather than bypass that assessment.

One mistake to avoid is: using automatic rules that disclose the case before checking the recipient's independence.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system automatically marks a report as protected because it contains the word corruption. What was not checked?

Read the facts and apply Articles 3, 4 and 6. A form category establishes neither statutory scope nor the reporting person’s reasonable grounds. If another procedure applies, identify it and limit sharing to necessary information. A broader internal policy does not automatically extend every statutory reporting route.