Notification procedures Longyearbyen Local Council

The Longyearbyen Local Authority shall be an open and accessible organization, with a structure and guidelines that make it easy to raise issues that are open to criticism.

The whistleblowing procedure shall ensure that the Longyearbyen Local Council receives information about matters that are open to criticism, that this information is handled appropriately, and that the report is followed up as necessary. 

- Openness and honesty are important
- All reports must be taken seriously and investigated
- Criticizable conditions must be stopped or changed
- The person making the report must be treated appropriately
- The person(s) being reported on are entitled to legal protection  

All employees, residents (users), suppliers, customers, and partners can report any issues that warrant criticism. 

First and foremost, it is important that the report is submitted to those who can do something about it and that the whistleblower is confident that the matter will be handled in a proper and satisfactory manner. A report can be submitted to any of the parties listed below, but for the sake of clarity, a suggested order is outlined below:

As an employee, you should, as a general rule, raise matters worthy of criticism with:

1. Your immediate superior or superior above them
2. Head of administration
3. Employee representative/chief safety representative/safety representative
4. Whistleblowing Secretariat: Human Resources and Organization Unit, c/o Human Resources Manager/Chief Safety Representative
5. Others whom the whistleblower trusts and who can do something about the matter
6. Supervisory authorities or other public authorities

As a citizen/user/supplier, customers and partners, reprehensible circumstances can be reported to:

1. The manager of the department/employee concerned or their superior
2. Head of Administration
3. The whistleblowing secretariat in Longyearbyen local government, c/o personnel manager/chief safety representative
4. Others whom the whistleblower trusts and who can do something about the matter
5. Supervisory authorities or other public authorities

What can be reported?
In some cases, there is a duty to report. This means that the law imposes a duty to provide information about specific matters to other public authorities. Examples of such legal provisions are:

• Working Environment Act § 2-3 no. 2
• Health Personnel Act § 17
• Criminal Code §§ 139 and 172
• Child Welfare Act § 6-4 Page 2 of 7

It can be difficult to have a clear definition of what constitutes reprehensible circumstances. Without the list being intended to be exhaustive, the following circumstances are examples of reprehensible circumstances that should be reported:

• Embezzlement, theft, and financial irregularities
• Bribery and corruption
• Abuse of power
• Violation of safety rules
• Bullying or harassment
• Breach of confidentiality 

Professional or political disagreements do not fall within the scope of the notification provisions of the Working Environment Act. Nor do complaints that fall under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act on complaint handling. 

A report should include the full name (may be anonymous), the reporter's place of work or relationship to the Longyearbyen local government, the date of reporting, the time period, the date and time of the observation (if applicable), a specific description of what was observed, the location of the incident, and whether there were other witnesses. For further processing, it is preferable if the report is made in writing, but it can also be made verbally. 

All reports must be taken seriously and handled in such a way as to maximize the possibility of changing any reprehensible conditions. No negative action shall be taken against anyone who reports in a responsible manner, even if the report later proves to be unjustified.

The investigations necessary to uncover reprehensible circumstances shall be carried out. If the report concerns specific individuals, they shall be made aware of the report and the information provided, and shall be given the opportunity to comment on the criticism during the investigation if the report is not found to be manifestly unfounded.

If the identity of the whistleblower is known, he or she shall, within a reasonable time, and preferably within 14 days, receive feedback on how the report has been followed up. A more detailed account of the case processing in whistleblowing cases and its legal provisions can be found at the end of the guidelines (the Public Administration Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Personal Data Act). 

It must be safe for everyone, both internal and external, to blow the whistle. Section 2-4 of the Working Environment Act refers to the employee's right to report critical conditions in the enterprise, and that the employee's approach to whistleblowing must be reasonable.

Employees have the right to report in accordance with their duty to report or the company's reporting procedures. The same applies to reporting to supervisory authorities or other public authorities. The employer has the burden of proof that the reporting has been in violation of this provision.

Retaliation against employees who report in accordance with Section 2-4 of the Working Environment Act is prohibited, cf. Section 2-5 of the Working Environment Act. This means that retaliation is prohibited if the reporting is justifiable. The prohibition of retaliation is important to ensure a safe environment for the whistleblower. The protection applies to all forms of retaliation, such as:

• Harassment
• Unjustified transfer
• Poorer salary development
• Withdrawal of work tasks
• Dismissal and termination.

If it turns out that there were no grounds for criticism, whistleblowers are protected against retaliation provided that they acted in good faith. An employee who raises issues worthy of criticism must be prepared to face counterarguments if colleagues and management disagree with the criticism.

If the employee presents information indicating that the employer has retaliated in violation of the law, the employer must prove that such retaliation has not taken place.

The administrative manager reports regularly to the working environment committee and the administrative committee on notifications that have been received and how they have been handled (without providing details of their content).