Who can be a whistleblower and in which contexts

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: recognise the work-related relationships relevant to whistleblower protection. 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. ZZPri has its own protection and handling conditions. An organisation may receive a wider range of concerns, but not every concern automatically has the same legal status. Distinguish reporting, fact assessment and participants’ rights.

A reporting person is an individual who obtains information in a work-related context. Under ZZPri this includes various current, previous and developing relationships, including contractors, volunteers and trainees under statutory conditions. Current employment by the organisation is not the only possibility.

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

Establish how the person learned about the facts. Distinguish the work-related relationship from the subject matter of the breach: these are separate questions. Collect the necessary information and apply the national rules on identity and anonymity. Also consider facilitators and connected third parties who may face retaliation, without collecting information about every personal contact. 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 subcontractor’s technician notices possible result manipulation at work. A former employee describes an event before leaving. Neither is excluded merely for not currently working for the organisation. Consumer complaints require separate 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: Can a report be rejected solely because employment ended? 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. Check the source, work context and other conditions, including time since the breach ceased. Preserve confidentiality during assessment.

One mistake to avoid is: equating whistleblower status with being a current employee of the organisation.

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.