Ten Years of Public Interest Disclosure Legislation in the UK: Are Whistleblowers Adequately Protected?

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this article is to assess the operation of the UK's Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) during its first 10 years and to consider its implications for the whistleblowing process. Method The article sets the legislation into context by discussing the common law background. It then gives detailed consideration to the statutory provisions and how they have been interpreted by the courts and tribunals. Results In assessing the impact of the legislation's approach to whistleblowing both in the UK and elsewhere, the author draws upon empirical research. Conclusion The author concludes that PIDA 1998 has not adequately protected whistleblowers and makes 12 recommendations for change. Despite the European Commission's acknowledgement that whistleblowers can play a part in the fight against corruption, the author notes that common standards for their protection still seem a long way off.

Risky Rescues and the Duty to Blow the Whistle

“…In a recent assessment of the PIDA in light of case law, Lewis (2008) suggests that the provisions for protection fail to provide it in a number of important situations. For example, the PIDA does not seem to be successful in providing protection for workers who raise concerns about serious organizational wrongdoing which does not amount to an organizational breach of a legal obligation.…”

“…This is important because whilst most (about two-thirds) of the claims made under the PIDA are settled out of court, in general the protection offered by the PIDA through court rulings amount to a sum of money awarded as a compensation for suffered damages. As Lewis (2008) points out, whistleblowers who have lost their jobs currently do not have the option of choosing reinstatement or re-engagement. Thus, protection for whistleblowers appears to be limited to a right to monetary compensation.…”

“…Wim Vandekerckhove and Eva E. Tsahuridu reporting procedures (Lewis, 2008) but generally whistleblowing legislation and internal procedures seem to deter organizations from retaliating against workers who raise concerns (cf. demands four and five, First, 25% of the respondents said the culture of the organization for raising concerns had improved since the PIDA came into force whilst 62% said it was the same and 13% said it was worse.…”

Trade Unions and the Whistleblowing Process in the UK: An Opportunity for Strategic Expansion?

“…Likewise, the TUC was represented on the British Standards Institute steering committee which produced guidance on whistleblowing in 2008 as well as a member of the Whistleblowing Commission established by PCAW (2013c) which developed its own Code of Practice. However, we can only speculate about why there is no vocal and explicit call from the trade union movement for the production of a statutory Code of Practice (Lewis 2008). A public campaign for improved whistleblowing legislation might reinforce the notion that speaking up about wrongdoing is in society's interest and the higher profile of trade unions on this issue might encourage individuals to raise their concerns.…”

“…More recently, they have had additional reasons for doing so, for example, to access individual representation at disciplinary and grievance etc hearings and to utilise legal, financial and insurance services. The purpose of this article is to explore the possibility of trade unions adopting a more expansive role in a society which has become, at least on paper (Lewis 2008), more favourably disposed towards whistleblowing. We define whistleblowing as 'the disclosure by organisation members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organisations that may be able to effect action' (Near & Miceli 1985: 4).…”