Whistleblowers

Blair McPherson

Most whistleblowers on bad practise and abuse are not board members or senior managers they are front line staff reporting concerns about colleagues having failed to get their line manager to take the matter seriously. But what happens when a higher up does listen? From my experience if the whistleblower wants management to take action they have to be prepared to make a signed statement and be a witness at a subsequent disciplinary hearing and that's when the real intimidation and harassment starts..

In my experience as both an investigator and a chair of disciplinary hearings the typical whistleblower is a junior member of staff who feels powerless in the face of bad practise and abuse. They cannot report their concerns to their supervisor because this individual is colluding with or choosing to ignore the bad practise. The initial response of management is not to take the matter seriously or to tell the individuals line manager that accusations are being made and by whom.

Social workers, nurses, care assistants, OT's , Physiotherapists, junior doctors, team leaders and domestics are the staff who need a whistle blowing system they can have confidence in, one that offers them support and protects them from victimisation.

Whistle blowing systems claim to offer confidentially, no one will know it was you who made the report but in practise the investigation needs people to speak up and disciplinary action requires witness. Whether we are talking about how elderly people are treated on the ward or how people with a learning disability are “punished for mis behaving" it comes down to the bravery of an individual being prepared to say what they observed. That individual knows that even staff who don't agree with the way patients are treated will still have a misguided sense of loyalty which means they will not inform on their colleagues and will victimise anyone who does.

Investigations can take weeks as large numbers of staff may need to be interviewed and if those accused chose not to co operate by making themselves unavailable for interview, going off sick with stress is a common response. Often it's months before the disciplinary hearing is held during this time things can get nasty for the whistleblower, anything from colleagues refusing to work with them to threats and intimidation against them and sometimes against their children. Many nursing homes draw their staff from the immediate locality, the whistleblower and the accused live a few streets away, shop in the same parade, kids go to the same schools. Of course management will instruct staff under investigation to have no contact with the whistleblower but it is their relatives ,friends and supports who are shouting abuse in the streets, making anonymous phone calls or pushing the dog shit through the letter box.

As a senior manager I chaired a lot of disciplinary hearings many relied on whistleblowers being prepared to back up their initial confidential report with are telling in front of the person they accused and then being subjected to often hostile questioning by the accused representative. At the end there was no guarantee that even if the allegations were found proven that the individual would be dismissed. So the whistleblower could end up still working alongside the colleague and supervisor they had shopped! As a senior manager I am amazed that anyone was prepared to put themselves through this. No wonder so many leave it to someone else.

Blair McPherson former Director of Community services, author and commentator on the public sector www.blairmcpherson.co.uk

A well balanced piece, but as we have all heard, the situation for whistleblowers is far from simple, although the law should be on their side. A whistleblowing ‘system’ or policy must be flexible enough to allow the whistleblower to select their point of entry. What I mean by that, and I’ll give you examples here, is that some policies are written without an understanding that the situation being exposed or reported can sometimes include the very people involved in the ‘situation/incident’. Whistleblowing policy of a local Government Organisation: How to Raise a Concern: “8.1: You should raise this in the first instance with your line manager. In most cases, the matter will be dealt with at that stage. The earlier you raise your concern, the easier it will be to take action. REMEMBER, IF IN DOUBT, RAISE IT.” Does this make sense at all? Shouldn’t the confidentiality and the need to ensure all allegations are independently dealt with place a third party requirement on this? If the line manager does not respond, or is involved in some way with the issue being reported, there has to be an alternative. His line Manager? What if that line Manager also has an involvement? Ultimately the majority of potential whistleblowers refrain from stirring things up, and allow situations go unreported. In a quite spectacular revelation, some employers will go one step further and attempt to stop information being made public (or reported) by settling through payment to individuals. While this may be quite common, it hardly addresses any issue other than smothering any information leakage. In one case a local council in the NW has recently been seen to have spent £1.3m of public money doing just this. Surely this should be investigated and prevented. Usually all such ex-gratis payments are kept confidential under ( legally binding or not ) agreements of one kind or another benefiting the organisation, and usually paying the whistleblower. Frankly none of this is good enough, especially in the Public Sector where ‘our’ money is being used. Imagine this, public money could be squandered; that illegitimate use of public funds reported via whistleblowing only to become the subject of a publicly funded conditional payment to prevent the public ever finding out. How crazy can it get? Here is a simple suggestion (to alleviate ant possible contradictions and misunderstanding): All whistle-blowing instances should be heard by independent bodies/persons These should be recorded for the future in a form that can provided evidence that can be carried forward should the case require it. This is evidence. The incident should be investigated to establish credibility. If the reported whistleblowing is regarding any possible illegality, it must be reported to the Police. Without this sort of procedure being in place, there really is never going to be any security or encouragement for people to do the right thing. Any such situation should always be resolved as close to ‘home’ as possible, and with the minimum of fuss, but it must also be afforded full weight wham it comes to legality, or the potential for leading to breaking the law in whatever form that takes. I will give you an example or two of mishandled whistleblowing incidents (that I am aware of). You can make what you like of these, but ask yourself the questions; What would I have done, as whistleblower or as the person being reported to? What would you see the next step as being, for the person whistleblowing and for the organisation that is employing the perpetrators (being reported)? Finally, one exposed, what do you think the message should be to everyone else? Instances: A member of staff who has chosen not to declare the fact , has been convicted of Grievous Bodily Harm at a Crown Court. He applies to work with a vulnerable group of people, and while being considered for that role is accused (and has to appear in court ) for a second count of Grievous Bodily Harm. He is a friend of your Manager. What would you do - if anything? 2) You are aware that a series of thefts of IT equipment is showing a pattern, but more importantly, you are aware that a computer stolen from a secure area contains a large amount of very confidential, personal data that is not backed up. That data, if it became public knowledge would cause your organisation to become the subject of an investigation from the ICO. You advise your line manager of the loss. he ignores it and refuses to take your suggestion to report the theft and call in the Police. What should happen next? 3) You become aware of a financial irregularity in the accounting of a project you are involved in. The irregularity does not (as far as you are aware) involve theft, but that money that can from a funder has been improperly used to the ultimately detriment of the project beneficiaries/funders main purpose? Would you whistle bow? If so, who to, if your ‘bosses-boss” seemed to condone it? 3) You are aware that money promised to your own work is tight, but are told by someone that money that should be destined for your service is being redirected for other purposes. Your Manager seems to take exception to such allegations when you ask discretely what is happening. Would you whistle blow? 4) A member of staff who regularly drives your company transport to bring clients to your office seems to have a distinct odour of alcohol on their breath one morning, and you know that are driving that day. You talk to your line manager, but the incident happens again. Is this a situation for whistleblowing or not? Thank goodness we don’t meet these situations every day. Or are these all real?

2

More Blog Entries

Memebership of the 700 club

leave early, take the rest of the day off, have as many holidays as you like