Email from employee representative was whistleblowing under the Working Environment Act

An employee representative assisted a colleague in a meeting with, among others, an HR manager, where the colleague was given an oral warning. On the following day, the employee representative sent an e-mail to a manager in the undertaking, criticising the HR manager's behaviour in the meeting. In a subsequent meeting, the employee representative received a written warning because of the e-mail, after which he was reassigned. In a case concerning the employee representative's claim for redress and compensation under section 2 A-5 of the Working Environment Act – limited to whether his e-mail to the management was whistleblowing under section 2 A-1 and section 2 A-2 of the Act – the Supreme Court's majority of four justices found that the e-mail met the requirements for whistleblowing. It was considered decisive whether the employer had reasonable grounds for perceiving it to be reporting issues in the undertaking that would have raised concern if what was stated was true. The e-mail expressed more than the employee representative's disagreement with the undertaking's warning to the colleague. It described behaviour contrary to a rule in the undertaking's work regulations on considerate and correct conduct, and thus an issue of concern in the undertaking. The Court of Appeal's judgment, which concluded that the e-mail was not whistleblowing, was set aside. Dissenting opinions 4-1.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only)

Key area: Emloyment law, section 2 A-1 of the Working Environment Act

Key paragraphs: 36, 43–45, 48–50

Justices: Webster, Falch, Berglund, Sæther, Stenvik