Whistleblowing policy (Public interest disclosures)
Introduction
Whistleblowing is where an employee raises concerns about certain types of malpractice within the organisation that is their employer.
The Commission takes all allegations of malpractice very seriously. It is committed to maintaining an honest, fair and open culture with the highest standards of honesty and accountability. It is the duty of employees to alert management to malpractice and if they act in good faith and genuinely and honestly they can be confident that there will be no adverse consequences for their future employment or career.
This document sets out the Commission’s procedure for raising concerns about certain categories of malpractice as defined in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). This legislation gives statutory protection from victimisation and dismissal for workers who disclose information about such actual or alleged malpractice within their employing organisation.
An employee should not disclose confidential information or concerns relating to the Commission, or its business, or other employees, outside of the procedures set out in this document. If they do so they may not have statutory protection from any adverse consequences. They may, however, still have protection if they reasonably believe that by following the Commission’s procedure
- they will be victimised or suffer detriment
- they reasonably believe that evidence is likely to be concealed or destroyed, or
- they have previously raised their concern internally and it has not been considered seriously.
An employee may also seek advice in confidence, without adverse consequences, from Public Concern at work or a similar body (see Independent advice).
Back to top
When to raise a concern
Employees have a duty to raise a concern under this procedure if they have a reasonable belief that malpractice is occurring or is likely to occur relating to one or more of the following categories (as set out in the PIDA):
- a criminal act
- a failure to comply with a legal obligation
- a miscarriage of justice
- endangering an individual’s health and safety
- damage to the environment
- deliberate concealment of information about any of the above.
This includes action by the Commission, an Ombudsman, management or another member of staff; or action which has come to the employee’s attention during the course of an investigation or other transaction of Commission business.
Employees will have statutory protection from any adverse consequences if they act in good faith, and have a genuine and honest belief that malpractice in the above categories is occurring or is likely to occur provided they follow this procedure.
If employees have a concern about a malpractice that is not covered by the list above they may be able to raise this under the grievance procedure or by speaking informally to their line manager. In case of doubt on how best to proceed they can speak in confidence to the Deputy Chief Executive and Secretary (DCE&S), the Head of HR or another member of the HR team.
Back to top
How to raise a concern
If an employee has a concern about malpractice under any of the categories in the list above they should disclose this to their line manager. Should this be inappropriate because the line manager is implicated in the matter, they can ask for an interview with a more senior manager or with the DCE&S.
If an employee is worried about making their initial disclosure to any member of staff (ie because of the scale or nature of the malpractice), they may raise it with an Ombudsman or the independent Chair of the Audit Committee (whose contact details are available from the DCE&S).
If an employee discusses their concerns with another member of staff, be they a colleague, staff or trades union representative, that person would be under the same obligation to pass on to the Commission, under this procedure, any concerns that they believe may be true.
Once an employee raises a concern it will be the duty of the person who received their disclosure to pursue the matter if that person believes it may be true. It will not be possible for the employee to prevent the matter being investigated by subsequently withdrawing their concern.
If an employee raises their concern anonymously the Commission may not be able to take the matter further. It is likely to take steps to trace whoever raised the concern in order to determine whether the matter should be pursued and to be fair to the person(s) who is the subject of the allegation.
Back to top
The investigation of the allegation
The Commission will appoint someone to investigate the allegation. If it involves, or may involve, malpractice by another employee it will be investigated by a manager who is at least one level senior to that employee. If it involves malpractice by a Deputy or an Ombudsman, the matter will be investigated by a person specifically appointed for this purpose by the Commission, who will not be a member of staff.
The person appointed to deal with the matter (the investigator) will meet with the person who raised the concern (the whistleblower) as soon as possible to ascertain the details of their concern. If the whistleblower does not wish to make a written statement the Investigator will write a brief summary of the concern(s) that have been raised and the whistleblower will be expected to sign this as correct. A work colleague or trade union representative can accompany the whistleblower at this and any subsequent meeting.
The investigator will then conduct an investigation to establish the facts, in order to arrive at a view of whether the malpractice has occurred, or is likely to occur and whether any action should be taken by the Commission. This may include interviewing other employees, contractors or other individuals. The whistleblower will be kept informed of progress with the investigation. They will have the opportunity to raise any concerns about the way the investigation is being conducted with the person or body who appointed the investigator.
The investigator will not reveal the whistleblower’s identity unless the whistleblower agrees or it is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the investigation. The investigator will advise the whistleblower if it becomes necessary to reveal their identity against their wishes. The whistleblower will have the opportunity to lodge any opposition with the person (or body) who appointed the investigator so he/she can review the decision to reveal the whistleblower’s identity before the investigation continues.
If the investigation reveals circumstances in which disciplinary action against an individual employee(s) would be appropriate, that individual’s line manager (in consultation with the Head of HR) will take the necessary steps under the disciplinary procedure. In some circumstances the police or other external authorities may need to be alerted.
Back to top
Attendance at work during the investigation or subsequent disciplinary hearings
The Commission will be sympathetic in dealing with any anxiety the whistleblower may have about possible repercussions of having raised their concern. For example, if the matter concerns one of their immediate colleagues or their line management, the Commission may temporarily transfer the whistleblower during the course of the investigation, to another area of work. Or it may permit the whistleblower to work predominantly from home for a period of time, if this is feasible. In exceptional cases the Commission may grant the whistleblower special paid leave. Alternatively, the Commission may take the equivalent action concerning the person(s) who is the subject of the allegation.
The whistleblower may be required to attend a formal disciplinary hearing as a witness. The Commission will be sympathetic to any anxiety the whistleblower may have about confronting the person they have accused of malpractice. But the Commission also needs to ensure that the individual who is accused is treated fairly. The whistleblower will be permitted to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union representative when they give evidence.
Back to top
Where allegations of malpractice are found to be groundless
If the allegation is not found proven by the investigation, provided the whistleblower genuinely and honestly believed it was true and acted in good faith, no action will be taken against that employee. If the allegation was made due to a genuine misunderstanding, the individual(s) who have been the subject of the investigation will be expected to bear no malice or ill-feeling towards their accuser. The Commission will deal rigorously with any subsequent misconduct.
If, however, the investigation concludes that the allegation was not made genuinely or honestly, and the whistleblower did not act in good faith, disciplinary action may be taken against that employee.
Back to top
Dealing fairly with individuals who are the subject of an allegation
The Commission will be sensitive to the effect on and reputation of those members of staff, Ombudsmen or others who may be the subject of an allegation under this policy. The investigation will be carried out as confidentially as possible and the person who is the subject of the allegation will have the opportunity to raise any issues about the both about the proposed approach and the conduct of the investigation with the person or body who appointed the investigator.
The person accused of malpractice can choose to be accompanied by work colleague or trade union representative at any meeting or interview in connection with the allegation.
If the allegation(s) is found to be groundless, Management will take reasonable actions, including any suggestions from the person accused of malpractice, to remedy any adverse consequences arising from the investigation.
Back to top
Independent advice
If an employee wants independent advice at any stage they can contact::
Public Concern at Work
Tel: 020 7404 6609
www.pcaw.co.uk
Public Concern at Work is a registered charity which is the independent authority on public interest whistleblowing. Its lawyers can give free, confidential advice at any stage about raising a concern about serious wrongdoings or malpractice at work.
Nigel Karney
Deputy Chief Executive and Secretary
October 2010
Back to top
Date Updated: 17/11/10