Make whistleblowing part of the company culture

If whistleblowing is already mandatory, let’s make it a company advantage and part of company culture.
Show that you are not afraid of changes and that you want the company to be better, and that the employees themselves can also contribute to this.
Give them the opportunity to become part of the company and support the company’s whistleblowing system.

Why our external services?

Complex external ONLINE notification system solution

-> Client has a dedicated Whistleblower Software secure reporting channel available online from anywhere on the Internet
-> We takeover performance of the responsible person function including the associated responsibility for fulfilling obligations under the law

Cena služby

Deployment price: 200 EUR excl. VAT flat fee
Service price: from 200 EUR/month excl. VAT + license price

License Price:

0–49 employees – 70 EUR/month excl. VAT
50–249 employees – 80 EUR/month excl. VATH
250–499 employees – 135 EUR/month excl. VAT
500–999 employees – 215 EUR/month excl. VAT
1000–1999 employees – 285 EUR/month excl. VAT

Contact us:

Phone: +420 603 774 473
Email: jakub@vozab.com

References

Trust us:

Email us:

More about the mandatory internal notification system

Responsibility for the deployment and operation of the whistleblowing system

The employer is responsible for the implementation and operation of the notification system. However, in order to fulfill the obligations in processing the submitted notifications within the deadlines set by law, a certain natural person (the so-called “relevant person”) must be authorized, who is then responsible for the fulfillment of his obligations under a fine of up to CZK 100,000, which may be imposed by the Ministry of Justice during an inspection.

Choice of whistleblowing system

Most often, the choice of an electronic solution available online will be offered, which will be more impractical in many ways, whether it is about ensuring the confidentiality of the whistleblower’s identity and all communication with the “relevant person” and the related flow of information and documents within the company, as well as about ensuring transparency and documentation complying with the law’s anti-retaliation requirements, etc.

Due to the requirement of the law for the possibility to submit a notification in writing outside the internal whistleblowing system or even verbally (an audio recording or a written recording is required that faithfully captures the essence of the oral notification, in the case of an audio recording, a written transcript must be subsequently made), in addition to the electronic solution, it is necessary to keep even physical files.

After all, the law requires that the “relevant person” keep an electronic record of the data on the submitted notifications (a sort of overview), but at the same time to keep the notification submitted through the internal notification system and the documents related to the notification for a period of 5 years from the date of receipt of the notification, when it is no longer discussed about the electronic form. Therefore, it will probably be proposed that the “relevant person” keep physical files regarding the notifications submitted, where they will keep all notifications, i.e. both submitted electronically and subsequently printed, as well as submitted in writing or written records or transcripts of audio recordings of notifications submitted orally and, of course, all related documents.

Conditions for performing the function of “relevant person”

Integrity is a basic condition. Furthermore, the law imposes a requirement of impartiality on the “relevant person” and stipulates the obligation of confidentiality regarding all facts learned while performing the function. From the principle of the matter, the legal regulation thus forces that the function of “relevant person” is performed by a person who does not risk a conflict of interest between the employer and the whistleblowers. As a rule, this will not be feasible in the case of an internal employee, unless the content of his work is exclusively the performance of the “relevant person” function. This applies all the more if it were to be an employee in a leadership position or an employee of the personnel department, etc. In addition, the question is what if it is an internal employee who performs the function of “relevant person” who wants to file a report?

Avoidance of retaliation

An employer must provide whistleblowers with protection from retaliation, which is any negative consequences as a result of reporting.

It is important to mention that whistleblower protection under the law only applies to those who identify themselves. Thus, it will be common for whistleblowers to state their identity in an attempt to ensure protection, and thus that the “relevant person” will practically always learn the whistleblower’s identity. Therefore, it is really important that the role of “relevant person” for each employer is performed by a person who is not, and cannot potentially be, in a conflict of interest between the employer and the employee/whistleblower.

At the same time, if the company “allows the whistleblower to be subjected to retaliatory measures”, it is possible to impose a fine of up to 1 million CZK. Thus, mere negligence in setting up the system or inappropriate selection of a “relevant person” may, under certain circumstances, result in a company being fined. In addition, the whistleblower can demand payment of non-material damages from the company for the violation of his rights, where the burden of proof is transferred to the employer.

Evidence and archiving obligation of the “relevant person”

Among other things, the relevant person is obliged to keep the notification submitted through the internal notification system and the documents related to the notification for a period of 5 years from the date of receipt of the notification. Of course, so that no one has access to them. At the same time, the question is whether it is possible to secure it within the company, when any safe etc. are owned by the employer.

It should be noted that such documentation on the submitted notification, including the investigation of its justification, will usually contain information and documents that are very sensitive for the employer. In this context, it is good to think about whether it is even appropriate for an internal employee to dispose of such documentation. In other words, whether it is at all appropriate from the point of view of the employer’s interests that the “relevant person” should be an internal employee. His working relationship may end not for good, he may feel wronged, and then there is the question of how to deal with sensitive documents. A situation where the employer will deal with the “relevant person” in breach of duty or even termination of the employment relationship can be quite unpleasant for the employer.

Complex legal services for our clients

For details of our complex legal services for our business clients see ALL FOR BUSINESS section.

Contact us:

Phone: +420 603 774 473
Email: jakub@vozab.com

Napište nám