Die term whistleblowing word universeel aanvaar en daar word ʼn verskeidenheid definisies aangetref. Die eindresultaat van elke definisie bly tog dieselfde en die belangrikste gevolgtrekking wat gemaak kan word is dat ʼn werknemer ʼn beskermde openbaring maak van ongerymdhede in die werkplek en dat hy sodoende beskerm moet word van enige beroepsnadeel. Die doel van ʼn beskermde openbaring lê in die feit dat dit die hoeksteen is waarop individuele verantwoordelikheid van werknemers gebou word. Verder vestig dit ʼn kultuur in die werkplek waar stappe geneem word deur die werkgewer om ongerymdhede te bekamp, deur ʼn beleid en prosedure in plek te stel. Die sukses van die bogenoemde sal dan tot gevolg hê dat werknemers en ook werkgewers ʼn punt daarvan sal maak om op te tree in die openbare belang. Die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge 66 van 1995 bepaal dat enige beroepsnadeel wat nie in ooreenstemming met die Wet op Beskermde Openbaarmakings 26 van 2000 is nie, onbillik sal wees. Beide hierdie wette se hoofdoel is om die werknemer te beskerm teen onbillike ontslag, en in die geval van die WBO, spesifiek vir die beskerming van ʼn werknemer wat ʼn beskermde openbaring maak. Die openbaring sal beskermd wees indien die inligting in goeie trou geopenbaar is en as die werknemer ʼn redelike geloof het dat die inhoud waar en korrek is. Die ontslag van ʼn werknemer wat ʼn beskermde openbaring maak, en aan die prosedures soos deur die WBO voorgeskryf voldoen, is egter outomaties onbillik volgens artikel 187(1)(h) van die WAV. Die bewyslas rus op die werknemer om te bewys dat daar ʼn kousale verband bestaan tussen die openbaring wat hy gemaak het en die ontslag of beroepsnadeel wat plaasgevind het. Die openbaarmaker het verskeie remedies tot sy beskikking, maar in die geval van ontslag kan die Arbeidshof ʼn bevel toestaan vir die herindiensneming en/of betaling van kompensasie aan die werknemer. Die doel van hierdie navorsingsvoorstel is om vas te stel wat werknemers se remedies is in die geval waar hulle onderwerp word aan beroepsnadeel as gevolg van die openbaring van inligting binne die werkplek. Hierdie studie sal gedoen word aan die hand van die Wet op Beskermde Openbaarmakings tesame met die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge deur die posisie van die werknemer te ontleed vanaf die tydstip toe hy bewus geword het van die inligting, totdat hy sy remedies uitgeoefen het. Daar sal deurlopend na wetgewing en regspraak verwys word om alle opinies en opmerkings te steun. Ten slotte sal daar kortliks vergelykings getref word met internasionale instrumente asook internasionale wetgewing. / Thesis (LLM (Labour Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012

Die term whistleblowing word universeel aanvaar en daar word ʼn verskeidenheid definisies aangetref. Die eindresultaat van elke definisie bly tog dieselfde en die belangrikste gevolgtrekking wat gemaak kan word is dat ʼn werknemer ʼn beskermde openbaring maak van ongerymdhede in die werkplek en dat hy sodoende beskerm moet word van enige beroepsnadeel. Die doel van ʼn beskermde openbaring lê in die feit dat dit die hoeksteen is waarop individuele verantwoordelikheid van werknemers gebou word. Verder vestig dit ʼn kultuur in die werkplek waar stappe geneem word deur die werkgewer om ongerymdhede te bekamp, deur ʼn beleid en prosedure in plek te stel. Die sukses van die bogenoemde sal dan tot gevolg hê dat werknemers en ook werkgewers ʼn punt daarvan sal maak om op te tree in die openbare belang. Die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge 66 van 1995 bepaal dat enige beroepsnadeel wat nie in ooreenstemming met die Wet op Beskermde Openbaarmakings 26 van 2000 is nie, onbillik sal wees. Beide hierdie wette se hoofdoel is om die werknemer te beskerm teen onbillike ontslag, en in die geval van die WBO, spesifiek vir die beskerming van ʼn werknemer wat ʼn beskermde openbaring maak. Die openbaring sal beskermd wees indien die inligting in goeie trou geopenbaar is en as die werknemer ʼn redelike geloof het dat die inhoud waar en korrek is. Die ontslag van ʼn werknemer wat ʼn beskermde openbaring maak, en aan die prosedures soos deur die WBO voorgeskryf voldoen, is egter outomaties onbillik volgens artikel 187(1)(h) van die WAV. Die bewyslas rus op die werknemer om te bewys dat daar ʼn kousale verband bestaan tussen die openbaring wat hy gemaak het en die ontslag of beroepsnadeel wat plaasgevind het. Die openbaarmaker het verskeie remedies tot sy beskikking, maar in die geval van ontslag kan die Arbeidshof ʼn bevel toestaan vir die herindiensneming en/of betaling van kompensasie aan die werknemer. Die doel van hierdie navorsingsvoorstel is om vas te stel wat werknemers se remedies is in die geval waar hulle onderwerp word aan beroepsnadeel as gevolg van die openbaring van inligting binne die werkplek. Hierdie studie sal gedoen word aan die hand van die Wet op Beskermde Openbaarmakings tesame met die Wet op Arbeidsverhoudinge deur die posisie van die werknemer te ontleed vanaf die tydstip toe hy bewus geword het van die inligting, totdat hy sy remedies uitgeoefen het. Daar sal deurlopend na wetgewing en regspraak verwys word om alle opinies en opmerkings te steun. Ten slotte sal daar kortliks vergelykings getref word met internasionale instrumente asook internasionale wetgewing. / Thesis (LLM (Labour Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012

Zugl.: Dortmund, Techn. Univ., Diss., 2009

The main focus of this dissertation is to examine the operation of whistleblowing within an organisation. Whistleblowing constitutes an act by an employee to expose perceived unlawful activity by an employer or employee, within an organisation or company, to an authority in the position to redeem the situation. It is based on the presumption that any kind of business or organisation has to be governed by laws in order to protect society from fraudulent and corrupt practices. In South Africa, the Protected Disclosures Act of 2000 (PDA) sets out a clear and simple framework to promote responsible whistleblowing by reassuring workers that to remain quiet about perceived malpractice is not the only safe option and is aimed at safeguarding the employee who raises concerns. Thus, from a legal perspective, an employee making a disclosure under certain circumstances and prerequisites enjoys full protection of the law. Whistleblowing is thus not just about anonymously informing, but rather about raising a concern. However, whistleblowers, even if they act in good faith often risk recrimination, victimisation and sometimes dismissal. Therefore, in order to determine whether the PDA is applicable, certain criteria have to be met, pertaining to the definition of disclosures and of occupational detriment. A number of consequences may follow from the contravention of the PDA. The Act provides mechanisms for the employee to disclose sensitive information regarding alleged improper conduct by the employer. In order to enjoy the protection of the act the employee must have trusted the disclosed information to be true. However, not all disclosures constitute protected disclosures, and for the purposes of the PDA certain requirements have to be met. When it comes to automatically unfair dismissals, the most difficult issue remains that of causation. It is a courageous effort to blow the whistle on perceived corrupt or illegal practices by an employer of any kind, and such an action is often met with harsh retaliation. Therefore employees often remain reluctant to speak out about practices that might threaten the higher echelons of their organisational hierarchy. On a personal level, blowing the whistle may have severe consequences for the individual; dismissal being but one of them. Internationally there is growing recognition that the act of whistleblowing is healthy and necessary for organisations in order to control corruption and illegal practices. The international community has also implemented a variety of whistleblowing laws and procedures for protecting and encouraging those who speak out. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2011. / Mercantile Law / unrestricted

Freedom of expression and the right to criticize are important prerequisites in the Swedish labor market. In fact, the freedom of expression is regulated in a long chain of protection, and not at least for the public employees which have the ECHR’s protection and the Swedish constitution embedded in their employment contracts. For the private employees, on the other hand, the legal situation looks completely different. A private employee does not receive equal opportunities to invoke the ECHR or the Swedish constitution when criticizing the employer. The main purpose of this paper is thus to investigate the legal situation for each sector, after which the legal situation must be compared and discussed in light of the duty of loyalty.  As the right to criticize has become a major issue for discussion, Sweden received a whistleblower regulation in 2017 which came to protect workers from reprisals. Nonetheless, a couple of years have passed, and a new EU-directive has been introduced with a number of new requirements. In December 2021, Sweden will introduce a more comprehensive whistleblower regulation and replace the current regulation. The second purpose of this paper is accordingly to investigate the new protection and examine the possible impact of the protection in each sector.  The conclusions of the paper were not entirely easy to summarize. What is clear is that there is no uniform protection in the sectors, and the enhanced protection may result in a smaller gap between the sectors, despite different interests.

Already on 16 December 2019, the EU ‘Whistleblowing Directive’ (Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of 23 October 20191) came into force. It has not yet been implemented in Germany. Nevertheless, what will change for companies and is there a concrete need for action? / Bereits am 16. Dezember 2019 trat die EU-Whistleblowing-Richtlinie in Kraft. In Deutschland wurde sie noch nicht eingeführt. Dennoch, was wird sich für Firmen ändern und besteht ein konkreter Handlungsbedarf?

No description available.

In recent years, whistleblowing has lead to big headlines aroundthe world. This thesis looks at whistleblower systems, which are systems specically created for whistleblowers to submit tips anonymously. The problem is how to engineer such a system asto maximize the anonymity for the whistleblower whilst at the same time remain usable.The thesis evaluates existing implementations for the whistle-blowing problem. Eleven Swedish newspapers are evaluated for potential threats against their whistleblowing service.I suggest a new system that tries to improve on existing systems. New features includes the introduction of JavaScript cryptography to lessen the reliance of trust for a hosted server. Use of anonymous encryption and cover traffic to partially anonymize the recipient, size and timing metadata on submissions sent by the whistleblowers. I explore the implementations of these features and the viability to address threats against JavaScript integrity by use of cover traffic.The results show that JavaScript encrypted submissions are viable. The tamper detection system can provide some integrity for the JavaScript client. Cover traffic for the initial submissions to the journalists was also shown to be feasible. However, cover traffic for replies sent back-and-forth between whistleblower and journalist consumed too much data transfer and was too slow to be useful.

In 2019 the European Union presented a new directive, Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and the council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. An EU-directive needs to be implemented into the national law of every member state, which for Sweden resulted in a new law regarding whistle-blowing: Law (2021:819) about protection for persons reporting misconduct, or in Swedish, Lag (2021:819) om skydd för personer som rapporterar om missförhållanden. The directive is a minimum directive, which means that all of its content needs to be implemented into national law, but there is no stopping member states from giving further protection than the directive. This paper aims to analyse the new Swedish law, how it differs from the directive and earlier Swedish law regarding whistleblowing, how it interacts with other Swedish regulations and most importantly if and how the new law strengthens the protection of whistleblowers. Our focus will be on the perspective of the employee and what the new law can mean for them, along with discussing differences in protection between the public and private sector.  In order to fulfil our purpose we will in our legal investigation first present some background information surrounding whistleblowing to create an understanding of the concept and its importance. Then we will follow the legal hierarchy and firstly present information surrounding international and EU-law, then present relevant Swedish regulations that are of importance to whistleblowing. Furthermore there will be a presentation of both the old Swedish law regarding whistleblowing and the new Swedish law and how it is based off of the directive. During the legal investigation some case law, both from the European Court of Human Rights and the Swedish court, will be presented to explain some background to the origin of the EU-directive and to analyse if and how the new Swedish law could be of help in the Swedish case. Finally there will be an analysis based on our legal investigation where we answer and discuss our research question.

No description available.