- National Council rejected the Federal Council’s whistleblowing bill on March 5, 2020 by 147 votes to 42.
- Schwander emphasizes the lack of clarity as to which violations would have to be reported and where the boundary between permissible reports lies.
- He warns of negative consequences for employees who are labeled as whiners or pressured into leaving the company.
- SVP does not support clear regulation, does not want to strengthen protection against dismissal and calls for alternative solutions.
On March 5, 2020, the National Council decided by 147 votes to 42 to abstain from the Federal Council’s unsuccessful bill on “whistleblowing” (13.094). This concludes the business.
Pirmin Schwander (SVP) has developed in the Consulting commented on this as follows:
Whistleblowing is a fact, Mr. Bregy said. Yes, it is. I agree with him that the next case will come. Everyone will then be outraged – I agree with that, too – and there will probably be a flood of proposals again. That will probably be the case then. The cascade is clear in and of itself – I agree with Mr. Bregy on that, too. Where to report – first to the employer, then to the authorities and then to the public – is clear. But the question is what. The law now says: “Irregularities are namely violations of the criminal and administrative law”. How do I want to decide that? Where is the limit? When are they violations? That’s where the problem lies for the employees. There are definitely cases where it would be a must that we have clear rules. Mrs. Markwalder said: The companies have an interest in being reported. I personally have an interest in employees coming to me and reporting violations – personally, to me. But of course there are also cases in which such people are portrayed as whiners and these employees are advised to leave the company. That is also reality. I see that too; I even see that as an entrepreneur. This template fails because of the problem of what must be reported and what the employee can actually report. If it is now said that we need a regulation, I have to tell you: Yes, the SVP Group will also offer a hand for a regulation. But it doesn’t want to simply regulate, so that we find out at the end that we haven’t regulated anything after all. That is the problem. We from the SVP naturally do not want to increase protection against dismissal. We do not want to interfere with labor law. That is why this bill fails. In this area, we do not offer a hand. That is why other solutions should be sought.