|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
A familiar story A familiar story. A local government council officer discovers malpractice among his own staff - in this case allegations of abuse against children. The officer insists that disciplinary investigations and procedures are followed against the alleged abusers. Senior managers block this - one can only guess their motives - fear of bad publicity for the council? The officer is moved away to other work where there is less opportunity to interfere - especially with the protection of children. A process of isolation This is the beginning of a process of isolation familiar to whistleblowers. On the one hand, managers move the whistleblowers away from their networks and teams of colleagues into remoter parts of the organisation far from the site of the dispute. Or the stress of harassment removes them into sickness absence. Or management (ironically) counter-charges with their own trumped up charges to secure their suspension. The whistleblower is deprived of information and managers can re-control the information flow around the alleged abuse. On the other, more surreptitiously, rumour and malicious misinformation begin to circulate about the reason for the whistleblower's absence. Those jealous of the whistleblowers job, or friends of the abusers, will not be discouraged in circulating speculation, even slander. To whom does the officer turn for help and advice? The trade union. The trade union may already be aware of the whistleblower's vulnerability. But they also represent the interests of those other members, the alleged abusers. Management will not be interested in overtly supporting the abusers, but simply want the allegations to be suppressed for publicity reasons. If the whistleblower is determined some form of disciplinary may have to go ahead - even if it comes up with an 'insufficient proof' verdict. A disciplinary is a clear process for the union representative, with clear roles, responsibilities and a prescribed series of events. Unlike supporting a whistleblower. The Personnel Department? The longer a whistleblower persists in trying to get malpractice dealt with, the further up the organizational hierarchy will s/he get rebuffed and the more senior the staff involved in suppressing the concerns and - by implication - supporting those having harmed. The day-to-day functioning of the union officers depends on well-established working relationships with senior managers, especially in Personnel / Human Resources Departments, from where much of the crucial advice about action to take about whistleblowing will come. Senior Personnel staff will be reluctant to challenge their fellow senior managers and it is a rare union officer who will prejudice these relationships for a more junior member of staff, who has now probably been off work and out of contact with the organisation for weeks. This neglect of the whistleblower will be reinforced by the general climate of acquiescence with wrongdoing by the mass of employees and union members under the suppressive eye of their managers and the fact that the longer the union itself leaves the whistleblower, the more it becomes implicated itself with managers' collusion with the original malpractice. In the unsympathetic climate for trade unions in recent years, there has been less opportunity for members to meet collectively with their officers, who do a higher proportion of their work behind closed doors with management. A member who is not being given support by the union does not have the same opportunity to appeal to fellow members over the head of officials. Self-dependence becomes the weapon of survival. Control of Information As soon as the whistleblower becomes aware of managerial collusion with wrongdoing, s/he should exercise the maximum control over information by recording everything, responding to management in writing, clearly specifying their reluctance or refusal to act, ensuring the union receives copies too. Therefore, if they do not act on your behalf, you will have the evidence to use in any legal proceedings against the employer for breach of contract. The problem may be, however, that the union is the only source of free legal advice and that may be shaped by its own embarrassment at its collusion and the documented evidence may therefore be more important in appealing to the union's national leadership against the tainted local advice. If the union fails, then specialist lawyers may be available who will act on a 'no-win, no-fee' basis. Some trade unions have opened up discussions about whistleblowing (partly due to the embarrassment of the activity of voluntary groups such as FtC). UNISON spoke of whistleblowing in its submission to the Waterhouse Tribunal on child abuse in North Wales; but in it, a National Officer concentrates on the victims of the allegations, rather than the all-too-frequent victimization of those making the allegations, whether those be staff or service users. Trade unions, at the highest level, need to drive for stated policies to ensure that members raising issues of malpractice in good faith, are given at least as much protection as the alleged malpractisers. Gagging Clauses In addition, the general practice of gagging clauses to silence sacked or constructively dismissed whistleblowers needs to end, especially in the public sector where these clauses throw a cloak of secrecy over the misuse of public funds by senior managers to cover their own intimidatory behaviour. In employment legislation, a legal restriction should be placed on such clauses where the employer should have to justify such a gagging clause to be in the public interest. See also
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
