India. Ireland The government of Ireland committed to adopting a comprehensive whistleblower protection law in January 2012. The Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) was passed in 2014. The law covers workers in the public and private sectors, and also includes contractors, trainees, agency staff, former employees and job seekers. A range of different types of misconduct may be reported under the law, which provides protections for workers from a range of employment actions as well as whistleblowers' identity. Netherlands The Netherlands has measures in place to mitigate the risks of whistleblowing: the House for Whistleblowers (Huis voor klokkenluiders) offers advice and support to whistleblowers, and the Parliament passed a proposal in 2016 to establish this house for whistleblowers, to protect them from the severe negative consequences that they might endure (Kamerstuk, 2013). Dutch media organizations also provide whistleblower support; on 9September 2013 a number of major Dutch media outlets supported the launch of Publeaks, which provides a secure website for people to leak documents to the media. Publeaks is designed to protect whistleblowers. It operates on the GlobaLeaks software developed by the Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights, which supports whistleblower-oriented technologies internationally. Switzerland The Swiss Council of States agreed on a draft amendment of the Swiss Code of Obligations in September 2014. The draft introduces articles 321abis to 321asepties, 328(3), 336(2)(d). An amendment of article 362(1) adds articles 321abis to 321asepties to the list of provisions that may not be overruled by labour and bargaining agreements. Article 321ater introduces an obligation on employees to report irregularities to their employer before reporting to an authority. An employee will, however, not breach his duty of good faith if he reports an irregularity to an authority and a period set by the employer and no longer than 60 days has lapsed since the employee has reported the incident to his employer, and the employer has not addressed the irregularity or it is obvious that the employer has insufficiently addressed the irregularity. Article 321aquarter provides that an employee may exceptionally directly report to an authority. Exceptions apply in cases where the employee is in a position to objectively demonstrate that a report to his employer will prove ineffective, where the employee has to anticipate dismissal, where the employee must assume that the competent authority will be hindered in investigating the irregularity, or where there is a direct and serious hazard to life,