Policy Officer Laura Fatah represented Protect as a panellist at online event ‘To blow the whistle or not? A symposium on complicity and compliance in economic and social wrongdoing’ hosted by the University of York scholars James Killen, Zoë Porter, and whistleblower Ian Foxley. The event showcased the latest research in the field of whistleblowing and provided a platform to discuss ideas on whistleblower law reform.

Research findings were presented by James Killen and Ian Foxley, with insightful presentations from Kevin Hollinrake MP, Prof Emanuela Ceva and Dr Lorenzo Pasculli.

A key topic of debate for the panel –  which included Baroness Kramer, Prof John Blenkinsopp, Prof Emanuela Ceva, Prof Marianna Fotaki, Prof Kate Kenny, Dr Lorenzo Pasculli, Prof Iain Munro and Laura Fatah – was the Office of the Whistleblower Bill, put forward by Baroness Kramer as a private members bill in the House of Lords. Protect welcome Baroness Kramer’s expression of support for reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998; in addition to her Office for the Whistleblower bill.

Many agreed that the bill presented by Baroness Kramer was a welcome initiation bringing light on the need for legal reform. Panelists expressed a view that whistleblowers deserve better outcomes, and that the law can, and must, be improved to support this goal. Key issues raised in relation to the Office of the Whistleblower were its source of funding, how independence from government could be established and maintained, and the practicalities of which department such a body would be housed in.

Contributors spoke of the critical need for a cultural shift in how whistleblowers are perceived,  responded to, and treated. Prof John Blenkinsopp spoke of the ‘PR’ responses that companies so often have to whistleblowing situations, where an individual who speaks up may be hounded out of a career; when the easier, responsible, and far more effective approach would be for the company to thank the individual and rationally address the issue which they have raised.

Dr Lorenzo Pasculli spoke of the conflicting interests of the public versus those of corporations. Corporations are commercial entities which seek to make a profit above all else; whereas public interests include societal values and public safety. Combining Blenkinsopp’s and Pasculli’s findings, it is apparent that for corporations and companies to reach the point where they voluntarily embrace whistleblowing the commercial benefits of doing so must be clear, in addition to the potential risks of ignoring whistleblowers. Companies who do admit fault and seek to improve will fare far better in terms of consumer loyalty than those who deny any wrongdoing and instead seek to crush and attack whistleblowers.

This speaks to Prof Kate Kenny’s point that it is necessary to look beyond the law and view these issues in a wider economic and ideological context.  For laws to be more than merely ‘cardboard shields’, the bodies which enforce them must be properly funded and effectively overseen. Kenny illustrates that regulatory weakness is not inevitable: “History shows us that when regulatory authorities are well funded and have political support to effectively sanction (such as with the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s in the US which resulted in over 800 prosecutions) they can become a true force for change and present a genuine deterrent to future wrongdoers.”

Protect are keen to continue collaborating with all contributors who participated in the event, to identify how improvements to the landscape for whistleblowers might best be achieved; to seek solutions and learn from examples of best practice internationally.

Watch the symposium


The Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner (an independent body responsible for reviewing the conduct of financial regulators in the UK) this month published a number of recommendations for regulator the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in response to a whistleblower’s complaint about the FCA’s approach to their disclosure and how they had been treated.

Protect welcome the Commissioner’s recommendations as they mirror our own recommendations of how regulators should handle concerns raised by whistleblowers, as specified in our Better Regulators Guide and ongoing Legal Reform Campaign. Handling whistleblowers in an effective and supportive manner is essential for all regulatory bodies to properly deliver their public function, maintain their reputation and encourage further disclosures.

Protect published its Better Regulators Guide following a series of successful round tables with regulators and professional bodies to share and learn best practice with the overall aim of achieving a sea change in whistleblowing.

If whistleblowers are repeatedly mishandled the perception of trust will be damaged, leading to lower engagement from concerned workers and fewer sources of intelligence for regulators to act upon.

The Commissioner made the following observations:

  • I do consider that the fact that the FCA neither asked you any follow-up questions, nor engaged with you on this issue was a mistake

After receiving a disclosure, the whistleblower should firstly be asked if they wish to receive feedback. Whistleblowers should be provided with the opportunity to fully clarify the information given to the regulator for assurance that their concern has been understood and will be taken seriously.

Principle Three of Protect’s Better Regulators Guide states:

Offering the whistleblower an opportunity to comment on the regulator’s findings before publication may be appropriate. This may allow the whistleblower to identify any errors or issues which have not been raised in the report and ask further questions.

 

  • The FCA [should] consider whether 12-week updates are sufficient in all whistleblowing cases.

Whistleblowers should be provided with a time frame if an investigation is to take place following their disclosure. This is useful as it prevents dispute, uncertainty and alleviates anxiety for the whistleblower. Regardless of the length of time of the investigation or whether follow-up action has been taken, regulators should attempt to regularly provide whistleblowers with detailed updates .

Principle Three of Protect’s Better Regulators Guide states:

Ideally, a disclosure should be acknowledged (within 24 hours if possible). [It is best] if the regulator and the whistleblower can agree on a frequency of contact, e.g. once a month. This will be a key part of managing the relationship if the concerns are fed into an investigation that takes a long time to conclude. The whistleblower is less likely to approach another body, or even the media if they know when to expect a response.

Protect’s draft Whistleblowing Bill, as part of our Legal Reform Campaign includes a new clause, “Standards for Regulators”, which obligates feedback following a disclosure to be given within 3 months, or 6 months in duly justified cases.

 

  • Confidentiality has to be respected; but … whistleblowers – and the public more widely – need to have enough information to be assured that the regulator is doing its job.

Regulators should provide as much detail as possible to whistleblowers about the outcome of an investigation, balancing the interests of the whistleblower with the confidentiality of the accused. As the Commissioner commented, “the FCA needs to be as bold as it can be in disclosing information…to provide meaningful reassurance”. By providing an outcome report of the concerns, public confidence is instilled in the regulator, encouraging others to raise public interest concerns with the regulator in future.

As referenced in Principle Two of Protect’s Better Regulators Guide:

Confidentiality is the primary means by which a regulator can protect whistleblowers … breach of confidentiality could damage the reputation of a regulator or professional body … putting others off from coming forward in the future.

Principle Three of the Better Regulators Guide states:

Regulators and professional bodies should look for any information that can be provided to the whistleblower to reassure them and be open where there are restrictions (e.g. confidentiality or market sensitive then communicate this to the whistleblower) or where no further investigation is required.

Later in the year we intend to hold a webinar event for regulators covering these issues, more details on the event will follow soon.

It is crucial for regulators to follow good practice when whistleblowers approach them to ensure whistleblowers feel heard and that their concerns matter. We are pleased that the Commissioner’s recommendations were taken on board by the FCA and hope they are applied not just by the FCA but all regulators going forward.

By Nneka Egbuji

If you are a regulator or professional body who would like to know more about opportunities to engage with Protect and the Better Regulators Campaign, or find out more about our campaign for legal reform, please email Policy Officer Laura Fatah laura@protect-advice.org.uk


Covid-19 is exposing good and bad practice when it comes to sectors who put employee welfare first and foremost. Unsurprisingly, retail is not leading the way, as highlighted by the quite shocking reports of working conditions of Boohoo suppliers in Leicester.

As the UK’s whistleblowing charity, we advise workers from all sectors. At the start of the pandemic our Advice Line was getting calls largely from health and care workers over issues such as lack of PPE, and carers being forced to go into work when unwell, but the majority of our calls have been over furlough fraud from the retail and hospitality sector – industries we did not have much engagement with pre-Covid-19.  The two sectors have made up 21% of 510 calls we have received regarding Covid-19 related concerns. [1]

Labour Behind the Label, who campaign for workers’ rights in the clothing industry, in its recent  report Boo-hoo and Covid-29, People behind the profit  say they too have received reports from workers alleging furlough fraud, as well as low wages, modern slavery, illegal opening of factories during lockdown and illegal denial of wages and benefits in Boohoo and other e-retailers. Worryingly, the report also states: ‘We have also heard of workers – positive for COVID-19 – being required to work throughout their sickness in order to fulfil orders…..  We have heard of several incidents, whereby workers who had tested positive were told to come into work, and of managers telling workers not to tell anyone else about positive cases.’

Big retail companies with healthy profit margins are in a position where they should be setting standards in terms of best practice, including whistleblowing.  This would mean insisting on having whistleblowing arrangements. So why isn’t it happening?

Good whistleblowing arrangements should apply not just to the employer, but also to workers in their supply chains.  If supply chain workers are comfortable to raise concerns, companies will benefit from being better informed about risks within the chain itself.

Responding to concerns raised in the supply chain e.g. reporting breaches of minimum wages, and modern slavery incidents is difficult.  Organisations will have to weigh up discussing the issues with the supplier/s or (as in the case of modern slavery incident) reporting it to an external body such as the police.  A particular difficulty lies in how to protect an individual whistleblower who raises concerns with them. A manufacturer who has received concerns from a supply worker who is not a direct employee, may find they are limited in what they can do in response to a worker being victimised for speaking up. The response we would encourage is for the large retailer to no longer work with suppliers who they credibly believe bend the rules. But brand, reputation and even profit aside, retailers need to ask themselves if it is morally acceptable on a basic human rights issue for retail manufacturers to turn a blind eye? With the public becoming so aware of basic human rights issues, as seen with #MeToo, BLM, we should all care about the real cost of fast fashion.

Encouragingly, there are some good examples of best practice in the area of supply chains. Shift is a non-profit centre for business and human rights practice, that works in collaboration with the Global Social Compliance Programme (GSCP), a business-driven program for the continuous improvement of labour and environmental conditions in global supply chains.

In its report, From Audit to Innovation: Advancing Human Rights in Global Supply Chains, Shift identifies many best practice examples as below:

Both H&M and Marks & Spencer are working with suppliers in China and Bangladesh in order to develop their management systems to track and analyse employee working hours – which can then provide the data for further analysis, operational efficiencies, and reductions in those working hours to acceptable standards

One H&M manager describing most audit processes as a ‘game of hide and seek’, during which suppliers did everything possible to hide problems from the company. The company had grown quite discouraged by the results of its audit program: while audits were catching the small infractions, they were missing the bigger picture issues; the program was failing to produce improvements over time; and its supplier base seemed uncommitted to making those improvements. Driven by a desire to create greater transparency, ownership and commitment from its suppliers, H&M’s new system is based on a philosophy of continuous improvement. The company conducts fewer audits, but the audit of each supplier is much more in-depth, lasting 6 days. The end result of each audit is a jointly developed 18-24 month workplan, based on shared prioritization of issues for improvement. Rather than conducting periodic follow-up audits, H&M follows up on progress made on the workplan. Suppliers have reported to H&M that ‘they now feel listened to, rather than just accused’, and that they now feel they ‘get credit for what they are getting right, not just what they are doing wrong.

Labour Behind the Label want the Government to ‘recognise that it is not only unscrupulous suppliers but also the lack of regulation of pricing and purchasing practices.’

Protect are calling on the Government to press ahead with a new Single Enforcement Body (SEB). The Government have committed to a (SEB) to protect worker’s employment rights with the powers to enforce ‘the minimum wage, labour exploitation and modern slavery, along with holiday payments for vulnerable workers and safeguarding agency workers’ which was announced with a consultation last year, which Protect responded to. Currently, enforcement is piecemeal and can be ineffective, meaning that neither workers nor compliant employers are well served.

The SEB should be made a ‘prescribed person’, as many regulators already are, including the Care Quality Commission, the Financial Conduct Authority, and the National Audit Office among many others.[2] This would enable those raising whistleblowing concerns to be protected from unfair dismissal for approaching the SEB. This measure would help to increase workers’ confidence in raising concerns by giving them enhanced legal protection.

Legislation has not been introduced so far, but the SEB is part of as part of the Government’s Good Work Plan. Protect will continue to push for the SEB to be brought in.

[1] The data ran from start of lockdown 23rd March 2020-3th July 2020.

[2] 43F of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

By Andrew Pepper-Parsons


In March of this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak announced the creation of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (‘CJRS’). Protect’s Advice Line rapidly saw a spike in reports of “furlough fraud”, and, at the time of writing, handling nearly 300 calls with HMRC receiving 4,500 reports of fraud from whistleblowers[1].

This level of activity has thrown the question of rewards schemes for whistleblowers back into the arena, with some advocating that where a whistleblower speaks up about furlough fraud (or any public interest wrongdoing), they ought to receive a financial reward.[2]

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC), an independent agency of the US Federal government operates such a scheme, under the Dodd-Frank Act 2010. However, whilst whistleblower rewards schemes may seem like an attractive proposition, the Dodd-Frank model is unworkable in most sectors, and inconsistent with the public interest served by the whistleblower’s disclosure. Indeed, for most whistleblowers, rewards are the last thing on their mind when they take the decision to speak up.[3]

The Dodd-Frank Model used by the SEC

 The SEC scheme is only available to tiny percentage of those who speak up.

 Only whistleblowers who provide:

  • Original information
  • Leading to successful enforcement action
  • Of over $1 million

May apply for an award of 10-30% of the sanction imposed.[4]

The reasoning behind this reward scheme is almost entirely a small number of large payouts; proponents point to the large payouts for big scandals as evidence of success.[5] Since 2011, the SEC recovered $2 billion because of whistleblower tips and, in 2019, it awarded approximately $60 million to eight individuals.[6]

However, it does not follow that reward schemes are a sensible legislative proposal simply because the SEC scheme sometimes results in headline- grabbing figures. Kevin LaCroix, an attorney and Executive Vice President of RT ProExec, has specifically highlighted the huge disconnection between the number of reports (5,212 during FY 2019) to the SEC and the small number of awards (eight during FY 2019). LaCroix goes on to say, ‘When I look at the fact that of the total number of reports the agency has received 99.98 percent have not resulted in awards makes me wonder whether this program is really worth it?’[7] This view is supported by  the FCA’s research into US financial incentives. The FCA concluded, ‘ Incentives in the US benefit only the small number whose information leads directly to successful enforcement action resulting in the imposition of fines (from which the incentives are paid). They provide nothing for the vast majority of whistleblowers. There is as yet no empirical evidence of incentives leading to an increase in the number or quality of disclosures received by the regulators’.[8]

The Size of the Catch

The whistleblowers who call Protect’s Advice Line are rarely raising concerns about fraud or financial mismanagement of such magnitude; but they often raise concerns about fraud which significantly impacts the public interest. Key public and voluntary organisations are often run on a shoestring, yet provide invaluable support for the communities they serve. For them, the difference between success and failure can be a just few thousand pounds. How can it be right that whistleblowers who raise valid and genuine concerns about fraud, which do not fall within the remit of the SEC reward scheme, be left disregarded and unacknowledged?

Whistleblowing of any concern can have immeasurable and difficult consequences for the individual. This is important, as if the reporting of less severe misconduct is made less attractive, there is a risk that disclosures could be delayed, manipulated or artificially inflated.[9]

Non-Financial Sectors left out in the cold

Little attention has been paid to how reward schemes could operate in any other sector than the financial. Blowing the whistle on financial wrongdoing often exposes a pool of money; from which a ’finder’s fee’ reward can be calculated. However, reporting wrongdoing in other sectors does not often generate funding, and does not provide a comparable source for rewards.

For example, a doctor who raises concerns about patient safety cannot point to any recovered sum of money from which they should be rewarded. How then is a reward to be calculated? The sacrifices of whistleblowers in non-financial sectors are just as real, and it is difficult to justify a scheme that excludes the hospital whistleblower, or the teacher who reports a safeguarding incident, or the factory worker who raises unsafe food practices.

 Awards vs. Compensation

Rewards schemes are not compensatory, as the reward is not based on any detriment suffered by the whistleblower. In the UK, detriment is addressed through the Employment Tribunal, where compensatory payments to the whistleblower can be uncapped.  If rewards schemes were compensatory this would create a dual-system and an unsatisfactory state of confusion. Efforts should be made to improve the efficiency and robustness of the Tribunal system, rather than focusing on ‘quick-fix’ solutions.

Under the Dodd-Frank Model, rewards are calculated based on the financial value of the information, not the damage the whistleblower suffers; or the value which the information has to the public interest. As such, these schemes do not put the whistleblower or the public at the heart of the process. Whistleblower Wendy Addison, who offers consultation and training to organisations, aptly describes this as treating whistleblowers as a “hired gun for the SEC”.[10]

Whistleblower reward schemes maybe appealing because for complex financial cases there is the opportunity of both their legal costs being paid and the whistleblower being adequately compensated.  Making it more attractive for lawyers to assist whistleblowers is positive, given the disparity of arms that claimants face in tribunal.  As costs are rarely awarded against the losing party in employment tribunals, whistleblowers may succeed in tribunal, but find their compensation swallowed up in legal fees.  Yet there are many sectors where the wrongdoing exposed by whistleblowers carries no financial fine (e.g. the Oxfam sexual exploitation whistleblowing scandal) where fines are not appropriate, therefore awards scheme have little value.  A better response to a lack of support for whistleblowers within the legal process is to provide them with access to funding, for example through legal aid.[11]

A fundamental principle of whistleblowing is upholding the public interest in every workplace, in every sector. The facilitation of rewards under the Dodd-Frank model does not reflect the value of the public interest, nor the harm suffered by the whistleblower – only the size of the catch they bring in.

Whistleblowers tell us the real reason they speak up is not driven by a cash reward incentive, but because it is the right thing to do and we should all be grateful this is the case.

By Protect Adviser Kyran Kanda, July 2020

[1] https://www.itv.com/news/2020-07-01/exclusive-4500-whistleblower-complaints-as-bosses-force-furloughed-staff-to-work

[2] https://challenge.globallegalhackathon.com/gallery/5ec8290d136ce600448b0dc4

[3] P.g.5 point 12, Financial Incentives for Whistleblowers, July 2014

[4] https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower

[5] https://fcpablog.com/2015/12/03/gordon-schnell-yes-we-need-whistleblower-rewards/#comment-1286

[6] A list of recent rewards can be found here https://www.sec.gov/news/pressreleases.

[7] https://www.dandodiary.com/2019/11/articles/whistleblowers/sec-whistleblower-reports-and-awards-continue-at-elevated-levels/

[8] https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/financial-incentives-for-whistleblowers.pdf

[9] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822313.

[10] http://www.speakout-speakup.org/blog/whistleblowers-need-radical-justice-not-radical-incentives/

[11] See Protect’s legal reform campaign: https://protect-advice.org.uk/campaign-for-a-new-whistleblowing-bill/


Whistleblowing is raising public interest concerns relating to wrongdoing, malpractice or risk in the workplace. This could be fraud in a bank, food hygiene concerns, or issues relating to patient safety. And whilst whistleblowing concerns are not limited to widescale wrongdoing, recent scandals in the media such as the NHS Shrewsbury maternity scandal and NHS West Suffolk hospital (where staff were subject to fingerprinting to help identify a whistleblower) have highlighted serious patient safety concerns, as well as the hospital’s negative handling of whistleblowers. Concerns also tend to be in the public interest if the wrongdoing affects other people and their interests – not the whistleblower alone.Whilst the term ‘whistleblowing’ is not defined legally, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (“PIDA”) – which talks in terms of ‘protected disclosures’ – comes closest….Read the Impress blog in full

Blog by Protect Adviser Burcak Dikmen

COVID-19 has drastically changed the way in which we work. Government guidance has led to the temporary closure of a number of businesses while others have been tasked with finding quick and effective ways to ensure that staff are able to work from home where possible and that business can continue as usual.

For organisations employing key workers, there is now a heightened need for services to be delivered safely. We know from our Advice Line that this time of public emergency is giving rise to new concerns about keeping patients, customers and colleagues safe.  Staff need to feel supported, valued, and looked after.

The way in which we work may have changed, but the need for workers to be able to raise concerns when things go wrong has not. Whistleblowing is an organisation’s best early-warning system and now more than ever organisations should ensure that staff feel safe and supported when they speak up and that issues are properly investigated and resolved.

Organisations should consider the following steps to ensure that staff can blow the whistle properly:

  1. Building a positive speak up culture: While homeworking (for those able to work remotely) may present physical barriers to staff raising concerns you need to make sure that these do not prevent staff from raising concerns. Employers who have staff working from home should make sure that managers regularly touch base with staff and encourage them to raise any concerns that they have and make sure that managers are equally accessible to staff during working hours (via phone, email or video). Encourage your senior leaders to lead by example and drive this cultural shift by championing a good speak up culture.

 

  1. Update your whistleblowing policy: Now is a perfect time to review and update your whistleblowing policy to make sure that it complies with legal, regulatory and industrial developments. Make sure you provide a number of clear channels for staff to raise their concerns (including the names and contact details of key contacts) and ensure that your policy is in plain English and easily accessible online.

 

  1. Test staff attitudes to whistleblowing: Organisations should make sure that they proactively engage with staff and ensure staff are aware of how and where to blow the whistle. Staff need to have trust and confidence in their organisation’s ability to handle their concerns. Why not take the time to test your organisation’s culture through online staff surveys, focus groups or listening exercises – all of which can be delivered remotely.

 

  1. Train your staff : While training staff face-to-face may be difficult, e-learning and video conferencing make it possible to train staff even when they’re working remotely. Make sure that all staff across your organisation understand what whistleblowing is; how and where to raise and escalate concerns, the difference between whistleblowing and grievances and where they can get independent advice as a whistleblower. Make sure that managers listed within your whistleblowing policy are trained on their role and responsibilities. You may want to develop FAQs for managers which explains how they should handle the confidentiality and victimisation of whistleblower.

 

These are difficult and uncertain times, and a strong message that you value your staff and are listening to their concerns will help to protect you, your staff and the general public.

 

Written by Hari Raithatha, a Senior Adviser on our Advice Line. Hari works closely with Protect’s Training and Consultancy team to help organisations meet whistleblowing best practice. He has qualified as a solicitor with Protect in 2020. 


Gagging clauses have become quite the talking point thanks partly due to the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the #MeToo era and countless other news stories exposing their misuse. Controversial debate around the use of gagging clauses, or NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) and financial settlements to conceal sexual assault and harassment has tarnished the image of NDAs and highlighted their harmful impact of encouraging a culture of silence in cases of serious misconduct.

NDAs, sometimes referred to as confidentiality clauses or “gagging clauses” are written into a contract to stop information being disclosed. They serve a useful and legitimate role in employment contracts and settlement agreements. They protect commercially sensitive information and prevent employees sharing this information with their competitors.

However, there is increasing evidence these gagging clauses are being used unethically by some employers to intimidate whistleblowers, silence victims of harassment and discrimination, and conceal wrongdoing in the workplace.

But there are limitations to what can legally be ‘gagged’ by NDAs, which workers are often unaware of.

The current law on whistleblowing states any agreement which prevents a worker from whistleblowing, or making a protected disclosure is void ( s43J Public Interest Disclosure Act, PIDA, 1998,) but s43J has been hotly debated. NDA wording is often vague and contains no clear guidance as to how confidentiality clauses should be used and to what extent they should highlight the worker’s rights.

Protect has long been calling for NDA reform. A key ask in our Draft Whistleblowing Bill to reform PIDA is NDA reform. We want to see stronger and clearer wording to prevent the use of gagging clauses and a guarantee whistleblowers faced with a settlement agreement will get legal advice on any non-disclosure clauses.

A  Government Consultation March-April 2019 by BEIS  (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy) concluded clauses being used to silence and intimidate victims of harassment and discrimination cannot be tolerated. Almost half (48%) of respondents had seen an example of a confidentiality clause that attempted to cloud a worker’s right to make a protected disclosure or overstretch the extent to which the information is confidential. The Consultation stated that it is important that workers understand their rights when they sign a confidentiality clause so they are not misled that they cannot disclose certain information. 83% of respondents agreed that confidentiality clauses should clearly highlight the disclosures that are not prohibited.

Protect suggested the following reforms to the law:

 

  • an exclusion in any NDA allowing for the disclosure of information about workplace harassment or discrimination to a regulator – not just the police – so wrongdoing that falls short of criminal conduct can be investigated and individuals held to account
  • improved advice for all employees: there is a very low awareness of employment rights around whistleblowing, as well as discrimination and harassment, and obscure wording around settlement agreements does not aid understanding• a standard document to be handed to all employees who sign a settlement agreement, explaining the limits of all confidentiality clauses in non-legalistic language

In our Draft Bill we address the lack of clarity of gagging clauses in settlement agreements by proposing clearer wording for s43J:

‘No agreement made before, during or after employment between an individual and an employer may preclude that individual from making a protected disclosure.’

Additional to this clearer wording is that any settlement agreement involving whistleblowing will have a clear statement saying that nothing in the agreement can stop the individual escalating the concerns, and certificate from an independent legal advisor explaining the requirements and limitations of the confidentiality clause.

We believe these provisions will make a whistleblower’s rights and responsibilities under a settlement agreement much clearer.

 

Blog written by Rhiannon Plimmer-Craig


Academics, journalists, whistleblowers, advocates and members of the public gathered at The Shard for an event hosted by Warwick Business School recently to discuss the hurdles they faced in their own journeys and recent trends in whistleblowing.

Protect’s Policy Officer, Laura Fatah, attended the event arranged by academics Marianna Fotaki and Iain Munro (www.whistleblowingimpact.com) with special guest Katharine Gun. Katharine was a translator based at British intelligence agency, GCHQ, who raised concerns in 2003 over a US plot to spy on the United Nations diplomats to ‘give the Americans an edge’ in their attempts to persuade the Council to go to war with Iraq.

Katharine Gun & Official Secrets

Gun knew this wasn’t right on three counts: GCHQ was being used for political means; the aim was to achieve war, and the diplomatic processes of the UN were being corrupted. She had also privately conducted her own research; and found “no reasonable reason” for the planned invasion. However – she was bound by the Official Secrets Act.

A lack of internal options lead Gun to conclude she had no option but to go against all her training and contact the media. Her whistleblowing has been made into the recent film ‘Official Secrets’.

Although the two states of the UK and the US eventually did go to war – they did so without approval of the UN, and amid international disapproval. Katharine Gun will be remembered for revealing to the world the underhand tactics of the US and UK.

Public Interest

The ‘public interest’ and who decides what this is was a key discussion point throughout the event at the Shard. Gun noted that the public interest defence, as used by the jury to successfully dismiss the case against Clive Ponting (who blew the whistle on the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War), is no longer part of the Official Secrets Act. The public jury in that case clearly wanted to respect the societal value of the information that Ponting revealed, despite its confidential nature.

Modern Warfare

Mark Curtis, Editor of Declassified UK, spoke about the continued use of covert and potentially unlawful tactics the UK state still employs. He referred to cases when the UK is seen supporting the military operations of countries who have been found to be in breach of international law, such as the continued Saudi Arabian military assault of Yemen, the Israeli government’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and the US drone programme in Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Curtis highlights the particular difficulty whistleblowers face when raising concerns about the actions of their own government, as opposed to the vast majority of whistleblowers who raise concerns about malpractice or wrong doing in non-governmental institutions.

Trends in Whistleblowing 

Academic Iain Munro gave a brilliant summary of his recent work exploring trends in whistleblowing, and how the modern whistleblower is often supported by a network – without which they could not be effective. Members of the network include lawyers, journalists, confidants, advocates and translators. The use of technology was also discussed, and how best this can be used to securely share source material; technology has enabled the open source sharing of data with journalists and members of the global public. There is room for a genuine debate over the role of redaction in various forms of networked whistleblowing, but there is little doubt that it has played a huge role in stimulating public debate over issues including the legitimacy of recent wars, the 2008 financial crisis, offshore tax evasion and global mass surveillance.

Dave Lewis, of Middlesex University, explored the idea of pro-active protection for whistleblowers, including a protected status parallel to that of pregnant women in employment. However, this would naturally require the sacrifice of confidentiality. Ian Foxley spoke of his own ordeal, which is still on going, and how whistleblowers might learn ‘survival techniques’ from other human rights defenders. There was agreement that whistleblowers are faced with an overwhelming psychological toll and often need support.

It was a fascinating event with many interesting points put across by both whistleblowers and academics. Protect look forward to discussing the issues raised and our campaign for a new law for whistleblowing with all the delegates.

Resources:

 

By Laura Fatah


 

Protect and law firm Howard Kennedy joined forces for a successful secondment, offering a three-month secondment to Protect’s trainee solicitor, Hari Raithatha, and Howard Kennedy’s trainee solicitor, Diarra Brown. So, how did they get on, and what did they both learn?

Qu: What did you do, and what did you learn?

Hari: Being at Howard Kennedy gave me a real insight into how employment law issues impact organisations on a daily basis. While working in the employment team I worked on a real mix of issues including advising on the employment issues in the acquisition of company and also advising on a disability discrimination matter as part of the firms Pro Bono program.

Diarra: To be proactive and to put yourself forward this is very much appreciated especially in an organisation like Protect. Taking the time to listen and show empathy can drastically improve someone’s outlook.


Qu: Was it what you expected, did anything surprise you?

Hari: I was really surprised by the mix of issues that the employment team would be involved with at any one time. Nothing could have prepared me for the challenge of putting case bundle together!!!

Diarra: I didn’t know what to expect from the secondment and went into it with an open mind. What suprised me, was the amount of challenging calls the advice line receives. The variety of concerns raised and the fact that calls can come from senior managers and HR. As an advisor you need to ensure that you are as equipped to deal with this.


Qu:  What were the challenges?

Hari: Having to constantly think on your feet and get up to speed with a number of different areas of law in a short period of time.

Diarra: Learning everyone’s names… I would have to say getting used to a completely different environment in a short space of time, but it was good to try a new way of working.


Qu
: Would you recommend the experience and what we’re your takeaways?

Hari: Absolutely! Working at Howard Kennedy has really opened my eyes to how dynamic and constantly changing employment law is.  It has been great to have gained an insight into this. It’s shown me the value of providing clear, practical solutions to clients, which I’m really keen to develop in my work at Protect training businesses and advising whistleblowers. Visiting the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeals Tribunal with Counsel (while daunting!) has really helped me understand some of the issues faced by litigants in person when presenting cases.

Diarra: Yes, I’d recommend the experience, as I got as much as I put in and put my hand up for everything! I think this was appreciated. My takeaway was never underestimate how valuable your input can be. Especially to a whistleblower in the midst of a challenging work situation.

Qu: What will you miss?

Hari: The weekly lunch and learn sessions with the other corporate trainees and the amazing office. And also working round the corner from Borough Market! But I’ll miss some of the great people I met – but hope to stay in touch with them!

Diarra: The people without a doubt.


I joined Protect as a volunteer just after I finished my Legal Practice Course and although I had only a basic grasp of aspects of employment law, Protect’s work really appealed to me.

Summarising Employment Tribunal judgments and highlighting the relevant discussions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act seemed daunting at first, but after an informative induction and feedback on a few initial case summaries, I felt much more confident pulling out and writing up the relevant points for use by Protect’s advisers. I have learnt so much over the last six months, seeing the legal challenges from the perspectives of both the whistleblower and the employer. As well as becoming familiar with the legal tests applying to whistleblower protection, I also attended internal meetings and took part in training sessions on whistleblowing law.

Having spent six months at Protect, I have now come to the end of my time here and am moving to a specialist corporate law firm in the City, Lewis Townsend LLP to continue my legal career.

The people at Protect have been inspiring for their commitment and empathy towards whistleblowers and I am so sad to be leaving. I will continue to recommend Protect as a fantastic and rewarding volunteering opportunity and can only hope the charity and its work receives the support it deserves.

 

By Protect volunteer Jo Cousins