Recognising situations that may warrant a report

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: identify when a situation warrants reporting and which channel to consult. 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. The reporting person supplies known information without a duty to conduct a personal investigation. Clarity separates facts, sources and uncertainty. Safety includes choosing a route and limiting unnecessary personal data.

A report may concern a breach that has occurred, is ongoing, is reasonably likely to occur, or an attempt to conceal one. You do not need to wait for harm to occur. Apply the national conditions for protection, including reasonable grounds concerning the information and the scope. Do not add a requirement that the reporting person have no personal motive. Where national law refers to good faith, apply its legal meaning rather than a judgement of personal sympathy. An organisation may accept additional matters if its policy explains their treatment. An emergency also requires the appropriate response services.

Apply the following rule: ZZPri covers information about breaches of rules applicable in Slovenia obtained in a work-related context. Protection requires reasonable grounds for believing the information true at the time of reporting and use of a route under the Act. Article 5 excludes protection where the report is made two years or more after the breach ceased. This is not a retention period. Relevant previous and developing relationships, facilitators and connected persons are covered under statutory conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Read the channel information and identify the subject. Ask yourself what facts you observed and why they raise concern. Consult the complaints or employment procedure where appropriate. If people face immediate danger, also contact the relevant services. Do not seek unauthorised access to systems to confirm a suspicion. 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

An employee saw a date changed in a funding application but does not know whether that version was submitted. She describes the change, date and file and explicitly identifies the unknown submission. 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: Should she assert that a false application was definitely submitted? 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.

Not if she does not know. State observations and their limits. Other sources can establish submission.

One mistake to avoid is: waiting for impossible certainty or filling gaps with assumptions presented as facts.

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

Assess facts, the work-related context, reasonable grounds at reporting, the chosen route and statutory conditions, including time since the breach ceased. The label does not determine protection. Clarify missing information safely and proportionately.