Whistleblowing a ‘professional obligation’

On the matter of tribunals... it is not just the ETs which are stacked against the layman, Leasehold Valuation tribunals are also tricky.This is due to the fact the process was originally designed by lawyers and so the emphasis in both cases is on pleading and procedure both of which the lay person will have no clue about unless they read the text books.

It is a serious injustice and I would like to do something about this, having now represented someone at a LVT and been the subject of the 2 previously mentioned employment settlements but it is difficult to see how to work effectively to change things.

The golden rule with whistleblowing (and LVT) is to make the first move ie not respond to employer action before bringing your grievance or request for determination. Only if you do that do you have a reasonable chance of success, blowing the whistle after being disciplined or other action is not enough. If anyone is in the position of sitting on stuff I would advise do not fester and then allow the employer to take issue with your performance.

Have some guts and bring the matter forward with an audit trail that you have done so in the right way to the right people in accordance with the company policy and evidencing you are acting explicitly in accordance with that policy. You cannot then be faulted later if it goes to tribunal and any personal consequences you may then suffer eg sickness or instability or ostracism can potentially become further cause for action against the employer.

If you are dismissed following disclosures made in accordance with policy and procedure you must file a tribunal claim for interim relief within seven days based on protected disclosure. The tribunal can ( and if you have documented the mater well probably will) order on the basis of an arguable case prima facie that the employer continue to pay you in full pending the outcome of a full hearing which will concentrate the employer's mind wonderfully!

Finally there is just no point being a martyr to the cause whatever that is so settle if you get a good offer or if you make an offer you are happy with and that is accepted. This should include a reference that you write plus severance pay and any other reasonable compensation other wise you may be in limbo for some time. if you await a tribunal hearing and get a job meanwhile then any settlement at tribunal will reflect your employability and be reduced accordingly, which favours the victim approach

I settled as I did not want to hang around being a victim for months on end awaiting the outcome of a stressful and complex process, that is enslavement, settle and move on if possible.

I have found it very interesting just how far management are prepared to go to cover things up. Sadly I can also honestly say that a Tribunal cannot be conducted by the normal bloke on the street.

In addition to that if I had not seen with my own eyes just how this country treats people who fall ill through bullying I would not have believed it. I have been through the Winslow Boy (substitute whistle-blowing for the 5 bob postal order), An Inspector Calls, Down and Out in Paris and London and am now experiencing 1984 and no doubt Bleak House will follow.

Soon I will have the disclosures that the court have had to order. Having seen the stuff that they actually concocted in response to the stuff I disclosed, I have arranged a nice big dinner party so we can all have a good laugh at their further wrigglings.

Seriously though it has become surreal now. It could be a damn good book and film if I can resist the gagging order!

Yup, sounds like another case of ethical and morale bankruptcy where institutional ranks closed for fear of repercussions should one be seen to be off-message and not on the "right" page with whips (line management) running just to make sure.

The longitudenal "Whitehall II Study" interestingly was founded on the emotional stress associated with any sense of "injustice" that found significant numbers of civil servants felt over a twenty year period that suggests coping, tolerance, perseverence and adaptive exhaustion simply resulted in a serious increased risk of stroke and/or heart attack.

Soo, to look on the brighter side, however distressing it maybe, you might well be very lucky to "escape" the cycle of coping, tolerence and adaptation to increasing levels of stress sooner rather than later when your health and well-being has been seriously harmed manifesting in physiological and/or socio-psychological injury.

Good luck

Take it from me the public centre do not want to know and I am still waiting for the Tribunal for my unfair dismissal they have a barrister and a QC for the 8 day case I am on my own witnesses nobbled forged e-mails with wrong dates on and still they lie. So look the other way turn your back never get involved what they say and what they actually want are two different things be warned. Truth is a dirty word and has no place in the civil service.

Hear where you are coming from Chris yet suspect you are the exception that proves the rule that doing nothing will result in more of the same as all to many do not act for fear of repercussions and ultimately pay the price themselves as by the time they do act it is toooo late already collateral damage as they will be tooo broken in spirit rather than body to do anything about it and another one bites the dust..............

As an aside can't wait for someone to bring a civil injunction against their workplace bully and see how the employer deals with maintaining a 300 metre exclusion zone between the two individuals or perhaps there should be an ASBO issued against employer now that would be interesting to see how they reacted to that in the local press !!

I have had some experience of this from both commercial and public sector as I have has 2 settlements. My experience was that I was better treated by the company and it was far more responsive to the issues than in the public sector. In that case we both parted on terms which were agreed quickly and without recourse to expensive litigation, unlike the public sector. I also received a written outcome of my concerns, which had been acknowledged, and how they had been addressed. The public sector agency however continued to deny the problems and forced a very expensive settlement.

In both cases I could have held out and gone to tribunal and I had a strong case in both cases but chose not to be a victim and put my life on hold for however long it would have taken.

I do not know if this is a general experience or if this was a set of circumstances unique to myself, but the consequences for the public sector organisation were significant resulting in regime change of 2 officers and one Board member, a high price to pay for getting rid of someone who had genuinely brought evidence based wrondoing to their attention.

"Truth & Reconciliation" tis but a dream and the concept of ethical literacy let alone emotional literacy leaves the victim and their peers to suffer the slings and arrows of fear and guilt for it is the 'omission to do anything' that is the rotten worm in the barrel of basically good apples contaminating the integrity and dignity of all.

The employer need not fear any repercussions of their sort of sanctioned abuse as more than 90% of the victims are gonna do noffin and if any of the other 10% do, no problem, as they are bound to be found 'contributory negligent' in affect minimising the costs of any claim anyway - no problem.

On the other hand "doing nothing" to address the collateral damage to UK hooman resources caused by the "Friendly Fire" of omission to do something has been recognised by the WHO, EU and UK legislature in the raft of people centered red-tape and regulation from Equity / Equality Bill / Act and Corporate Manslaughter to Occupational Health Directives supporting "self-advocacy" of employees who are becoming increasingly responsible for their own health & well-being.

There are, of course, a few corporate organisations, NHS being the first in the public sector, who are recognising the cost/benefits of a "fit4life" workforce in terms of ROI and performance or productivity health dividends but it is going to take time and transformational leadership let alone big one's to impliment this change rather than just shelve the tokenistic mission statements for reference purposes should someone enquire about policies............

It isn't possible to be reasonable about this. Dorrell argues that you fail the "professional test" if you don't - that means the sack. If you do, they'll give you 2 years gardening leave before sacking you.

Truth is, the distorted values of the "market" and capitalism take no account of rights or obligations - the powerful rule, and woe betide you if you have the temerity to challenge them.

David Lewis, Professor of Employment Law at Middlesex University and one of the UK’s leading academic experts on whistleblowing, said:
“If the Government is serious about promoting the disclosure of information in the public interest, it must ensure that employers explicitly encourage their staff to whistleblow whether or not they have a professional duty to do so. There is considerable evidence that people raising concerns have been penalised rather than applauded, so staff need to be informed about the protection that’s in place and told that their career isn’t on the line if they speak out.

“A good start would be a simple change in the law to remove the test of ‘good faith’. This is an unnecessary distraction from the need to investigate the concern that has been raised. Staff are discouraged from reporting problems if they think that their protection depends on judgments about their motives. The question that has to be asked is: would you rather have proper confidential reporting legislation, procedures and support in place, or see huge implications and reputational damage when these problems inevitably escalate?”