Which breaches may be covered

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

Today we will learn to distinguish reports within the legal scope from other communications received. Throughout the video, consider the difference between knowing a rule and applying it to a decision. We will work through an example, identify a possible failure and develop a response that can be used at work. 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.

ZZPri covers breaches of rules applicable in Slovenia learned about in a work-related context. An internal ethical standard may be broader. Choosing the wrong form category does not itself justify rejection; the substance of the facts matters.

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 facts before selecting a category. Identify the subject matter and consult the national scope provision, including cross-references and exclusions. A form label does not determine the legal classification. Where the channel also accepts complaints or breaches of internal policies, explain the applicable handling procedure. Preserve confidentiality while resolving uncertainty. 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

One report describes a potentially unlawful discharge; another challenges a holiday rota. The second needs further employment-law assessment. If the change retaliates against reporting, protection is also relevant. 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 the user-selected category sufficient? 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. Facts and law determine scope. An employment issue may contain a breach or retaliation, and the label may be inaccurate.

One mistake to avoid is: treating the platform's list of categories as the legal definition of a breach.

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.