David B. Lewis

Protecting whistleblowers at work: A comparison of the impact of British and South African legislation

Purpose – The paper proposes to compare the relative success of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (UK) and the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 (South Africa) in providing protection for whistleblowers in the UK and South Africa.Design/methodology/approach – The assessment is conducted in the light of case law in both countries and empirical research previously conducted.Findings – The most important feature of the relevant statutes in both countries is that they recognise the need to protect workers who disclose in the public interest. Although the current provisions are important first steps, it is believed that much more needs to be done.Practical implications – In the light of this research, 14 suggestions are made for change.Originality/value – The article makes proposals for reform to the legislation in both countries. It also attempts to provide guidance to practitioners by identifying good practice in handling concerns about wrongdoing.

Whistleblowing in a Changing Legal Climate: Is it Time to Revisit Our Approach to Trust and Loyalty at the Workplace?

This article suggests that the introduction of employment protection rights for whistleblowers has implications for the way in which trust and loyalty should be viewed at the workplace. In particular, it is argued that the very existence of legislative provisions in the United Kingdom reinforces the notion that whistleblowing should not be regarded as either deviant or disloyal behaviour. Thus, the internal reporting of concerns can be seen as an act of trust and loyalty in drawing the employers attention to wrongdoing. Equally, external whistleblowing may result from a workers belief that he or she also has a loyalty to the wider society. Given that the interests of employees do not necessarily coincide with those of their employer and that whistleblowers sometimes suffer reprisals, the author concludes that it is inappropriate to impose a contractual duty to report concerns. Instead, employers should endeavour to promote a culture of openness and create confidence in the mechanisms they provide for whistleblowing.

The contents of whistleblowing/confidential reporting procedures in the UK: Some lessons from empirical research

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to explain why whistleblowing is important and to examine the recent empirical research relating to such confidential reporting/whistleblowing procedures in the UK.Design/methodology/approach – This article refers to the 1999 IRS Employment Trends/Public Concern at Work survey of public and private sector organisations, together with the work conducted in local government, further and higher education, schools and National Health Service (NHS) Trusts by researchers at Middlesex University between 2000 and 2003.Findings – The article establishes the prevalence of whistleblowing procedures, why they were introduced and the extent of trade union involvement. It identifies who can use these procedures, the types of concern that can be raised and who investigates them. Other issues discussed include: the need for confidentiality; the problems of reprisal and malicious allegations; the availability of advice and assistance and the existence of feedback. The article also ...

Whistleblowing at work: The results of a survey of procedures in further and higher education

This article briefly explains the concept of whistleblowing and why it should be encouraged. It then describes the way in which the law both constrained and encouraged the disclosure of information prior to the introduction of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Having outlined the effect of the PIDA 1998, the authors present the background to their survey and summarise their results.

Whistleblowing, its importance and the state of the research

To the uninitiated or the foolish, ‘whistleblowing’ may readily seem like a niche, almost boutique issue for research and policy making. The ‘disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action’ (Near and Miceli 1985: 4), sounds like a very specific, perhaps even narrow or technical field of study. And yet, in the modern age of institutions, whistleblowing is now established as one of the most important processes – if not the single most important process – by which governments and corporations are kept accountable to the societies they are meant to serve and service. The ability for organizational ‘insiders’ to speak up about wrongdoing, and what happens afterwards in terms of corrective responses and treatment of the people involved, lies at the very heart of the health of all institutions and modern regulatory processes, right across society. In many ways, therefore, the subject could also not be broader, nor more far-reaching in terms of its complexities and consequences. This Handbook provides researchers and policy makers from around the world with a comprehensive overview of the state of our knowledge regarding this vital process, in light of the last 30 years of progressively more systematic research into whistleblowing. As well, it provides cutting-edge analysis of the conceptual and practical challenges that researchers should confront in the next decade, if our knowledge is to develop so as to better inform the way that whistleblowing is understood and responded to by organizations, regulatory authorities and governments. The Handbook follows and draws upon some important previous stocktakes of coverage and gaps in existing research (e.g., MesmerMagnus and Viswesvaran 2005; Miceli et al. 2008), and observations on the limitations of inconsistent and uncoordinated research (Miceli and Near 2013) as well as closely related fields like employee voice (Burke and Cooper 2013). The book also comes at a time when the reform of

Whistleblowing Procedures at Work: What are the Implications for Human Resource Practitioners?

This paper explains why it is desirable for employers to have whistleblowing codes, and draws upon professional guidelines and empirical research to suggest the possible contents of whistleblowing policies and procedures. The paper discusses who and what should be covered and examines the issues of confidentiality and anonymity, reprisals and malicious allegations. It also highlights the need to provide advice and assistance to those who have concerns about wrongdoing at work. The author outlines the possible stages in a whistleblowing procedure, indicates how a concern should be raised and handled, and suggests how a procedure might be communicated and monitored. The paper concludes by emphasising that whistleblowing procedures provide an important safeguard against problems being overlooked and may be vital if legal pitfalls are to be avoided.

Is a public interest test for workplace whistleblowing in society’s interest?

Purpose – The aim of the paper is to consider the efficacy of requiring a public interest test to be satisfied before protection is afforded to workers who blow the whistle under Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). Design/methodology/approach – Not all definitions of whistleblowing require there to be a public interest in the disclosure of information. To illustrate how the expression “public interest” has been used in this context, the common law defence to an action for breach of confidence is outlined. The paper then explains how the concept of “public interest whistleblowing” evolved in other jurisdictions. It also examines the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to see if it helps us to apply the public interest test. Finally, this test is considered in the context of UK legislation. Findings – Several sources of uncertainty are identified. These include the fact that personal and public interest matters may be intertwined and that an organization may encourage the ...

Protecting whistleblowers in Norway and the UK: a case of mix and match?

Purpose – This paper aims to compare and contrast the approaches taken by the UK and Norway in providing employment protection for whistleblowers.Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines the legislative provisions contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (UK) and the Work Environment Act 2005 (Norway) together with relevant case law and preparatory papers.Findings – Unlike the UK, Norway affords employees a statutory right to notify wrongdoing and requires employers to develop internal reporting procedures. The authors believe that the approaches taken to protecting whistleblowers reflect the different systems of industrial relations in these two countries.Practical implications – In the light of this research it is suggested that a right to disclose wrongdoing should be introduced in the UK together with a duty on employers to show that it has not been infringed. It is also recommended that what can be reported should be more precisely defined in Norway either by law or collective bargaining.O...

Nineteen years of whistleblowing legislation in the UK: is it time for a more comprehensive approach?

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) was the model for South Africa’s Protected Disclosures Act 2000 and has been regarded as an exemplary piece of legislation in debates in other countries, for example, the Netherlands, New Zealand and some Australian states. However, in the light of international developments since PIDA 1998 came into force, in particular the principles contained in the Council of Europe Recommendation and the enactment of more sophisticated statutes elsewhere, it is contended that the UK legislation is no longer fit for purpose. The purpose of this article is to make suggestions for reform in the light of developments elsewhere.,This paper assesses the operation of PIDA 1998 (as amended) in the light of the case law and empirical research.,The paper makes detailed suggestions for reform in relation to both the law and practice of whistleblowing.,The paper focuses on the main issues raised by the UK whistleblowing provisions. It has implications both nationally and internationally.,It is hoped that the recommendations will provoke thought about legislative reforms and changes in management practices.,If the reforms suggested in the paper are enacted, it is expected that workers will be more confident about raising concerns about wrongdoing. This should benefit society generally in that economic inefficiencies can be dealt with and citizens can enjoy greater freedom of speech.,This review of the UK legislation over 19 years should be of value to academics, students, legal and management practitioners both at home and abroad.

Industrial Relations and the Management of Whistleblowing after the Francis Report: What Can Be Learned from the Evidence?

This article focuses on the results obtained from the quantitative surveys conducted for the independent review into creating an open and honest report culture in the NHS. It examines the management of whistleblowing and discusses the research findings in the light of the recommendations made by Sir Robert Francis QC in his ‘Freedom to Speak Up’ report published in February 2015. The authors believe that the principles and actions set out in this report and the detailed Annexe describing various aspects of good practice are generally applicable in both the public and private sectors. In so far as it provides evidence that those who follow their employers procedure when raising a concern have better outcomes than others, the authors conclude that the quantitative research for Francis is consistent with other findings that power resources and institutional arrangements can be critical to the whistleblowing process.