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

Uys

2007

Managerial Law

Self Cite

PurposeThe 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/approachThe assessment is conducted in the light of case law in both countries and empirical research previously conducted.FindingsThe 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 implicationsIn the light of this research, 14 suggestions are made for change.Originality/valueThe 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.

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protecting whistleblowers at work

Uys

2007

Managerial Law

Self Cite

“…When asked why their procedure had been introduced, 260 institutions indicated that it was a result of good practice, 193 suggested compliance with the law, 114 stated that it was a management initiative, 6 said that it was prompted by an incident, and two mentioned that it was introduced as a result of a trade union initiative (Lewis, Ellis, Kyprianou and Homewood 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A survey of 600 colleges and universities conducted by researchers at Middlesex University in 2000 (henceforward the Middlesex education survey), revealed that 91% of respondents had a whistleblowing procedure, 1 43% of these procedures had been in operation for more than twelve months. When asked why their procedure had been introduced, 260 institutions indicated that it was a result of good practice, 193 suggested compliance with the law, 114 stated that it was a management initiative, 6 said that it was prompted by an incident, and two mentioned that it was introduced as a result of a trade union initiative (Lewis, Ellis, Kyprianou and Homewood 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Whistleblowing procedures at work: what are the implications for human resource practitioners?

Business Ethics: A European Review

2002

Self Cite

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.

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

2008

J Bus Ethics

Self Cite

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.