NORWAY Law and Practice Contributed by: Thomas Talén, Øyvind Clausen Bade, Marte Dahl and Marianne Viset, Ro Sommernes Advokatfirma AS
summary dismissal exist, the employer may require the Respondent to cease work with immediate effect, even if the whistle-blowing investigation has not been concluded. Such action requires concrete evidence of serious misconduct that justifies immediate removal from the workplace. Where the employer implements measures against a Respondent, and it subsequently transpires that such measures were not necessary, proportionate, or law - ful, the employer may face claims for damages and compensation from the affected employee. Where an employer fails to implement necessary measures against a Respondent in circumstances where such measures were required to ensure a fully satisfactory working environment, or to prevent retali - ation against the Reporter or other employees, the employer may face claims for damages and compen - sation. 4.4 Protection of Other Employees Under Norwegian law, the employer must protect all employees and generally ensure that they all have a fully satisfactory working environment. Where a whis - tle-blowing case prevents a fully satisfactory work - ing environment for other employees, the employer has a duty to implement necessary and proportionate measures. The specific measures will depend on the severity of the case and must be assessed to ensure they are proportionately balanced between severity and necessity. If the employer fails to fulfil its duty to ensure a fully satisfactory working environment for its employees, the employer may face claims for damages or com - pensation, and in certain serious cases, criminal liabil - ity and fines. The same applies if the employer imple - ments measures that are disproportionate in relation to the Respondent. 5. Procedural Requirements and Proof 5.1 Requirements The WEA sets out only limited concrete requirements for the employer’s investigation of whistle-blowing notices.
Certain fundamental principles are emphasised, for example: • A fair process must be conducted within a reason - able timeframe. • The process must ensure legal certainty and pre - dictability. • The presumption of innocence must be maintained. • The Respondent must be notified of the allega - tions. • The Respondent must be given the opportunity to respond and present their defence, including the right to verify and challenge evidence (contradic - tion). • The Respondent must be protected against self- incrimination. • the Respondent has the right to legal representa - tion. Failure to comply with these procedural require - ments may result in sanctions, including invalidation of measures taken, liability for damages, reputational harm, and workplace environment challenges. 5.2 Internal Regulations The employer may establish internal regulations that impose additional procedural requirements. Such reg - ulations are binding on the employer once implement - ed. Non-compliance with internal regulations may result in the same consequences as failure to comply with statutory requirements, including invalidation of measures taken and potential liability for damages. 5.3 Burden and Degree of Proof The allocation of the burden of proof varies depending on the nature of the whistle-blowing matter. Where the qualification of a statement or action as a notice of concern is disputed, the burden lies on the employer to prove that the report does not comply with the applicable legal requirements. In cases involving alleged retaliation, the burden of proof is shared: the employee must present evidence suggesting that retaliation occurred, whereupon the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the contested actions were not taken in response to the notice of concern.
295 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook