Whistleblowing

1. Whistleblowing

2. Some definitions • Bringing an activity to a sharp conclusion as if by the blast of a whistle (OED); • Raising concerns about misconduct within an organisation or within an independent structure associated with it (Nolan Committee); • Giving information (usually to the authorities) about illegal & underhand practices (Chambers); • Exposing to the press a malpractice or cover-up in a business or government office (US, Brewsters); • (To) disclose - to expose to view • Disclosure - the act or an instance of disclosing

3. Protecting the Whistleblower • In general, the only areas where Canadian workers have legal protection against discrimination are human rights, employment standards, environment and health and safety. • In essence, reporting sexual harassment, toxic-waste dumping or using dangerous machinery may not cost you your future unless the firm wants to pay thousands in damages.  On the other hand, squealing on a boss or colleague who walks off with a computer, bilks a customer or fiddles his expenses doesn't necessarily come with a job protection plan. • 1997 Supreme Court of Canada ruling has helped.   It states that an employer firing a worker must truthfully state the reasons for the dismissal.  As Ball says, an employer is hardly likely to say he fired someone because they revealed criminal company activities.  As a result, he says, anyone showing court they were let go for whistle-blowing could collect considerable damages.

4. Genuine The whistle-blower to the best of their knowledge is accurately attempting to portray the facts as they understand them Motivated by a moral desire to rectify a moral wrong “Principled dissent” Fraudulent Knowingly uses inaccurate info or hyperbole to portray the “facts” of alleged act Motivated by desire to hurt or get revenge on target; call attention to themselves to gain benefit; promote some ideals which are seen as worthy but require the sacrifice of selected target The real thing?

5. Key Issues • An individual or group within organization or recently involved with it “interprets” an even t or series of events undertaken by the organization or enacted by some of its members as a form of non-trivial wrong doing • The whistle-blower is not sufficiently powerful to rectify the perceived wrong • The wb attempts to make their interpretation of the wrong-doing a matter of public record • Info has the power to rock the status quo, but determination of wrong-doing is not made easily. Often lingering questions remain

6. The players • The Whistle-blower • The whistle-blower’s targets • The whistle-blower’s outlets • Organizational and societal bystanders • Society at large

7. The journey • Trigger • Decision to pull or not to pull the trigger • Action • Group vs individual • Anonymous vs self identified • Internal vs external • Formal vs informal documentation • Try to take control of process or let others deal out justice • Whistle-blower’s assessment of reactions of others • Results

8. The triggers • Accidental • Happen upon event (often leads to attempts to o-opt or threaten wb) • Investigative • Small indicators lead to discovery of larger problem • Disputatious • Differing viewpoints re interpretation of event • Escalating • Find out there is a team behind you

9. Going mute • Genuine change of mind • Too high or price to pay • Followed chain of command and therefore did share • Assumes that “others” know and accept it

10. Action! • Choices • Blow whistle as individual or group • Select w-b outlets which are internal or external to organization • Make disclosure anonymously or by self-identifying • Use formal or informal documental to interest outlets and other org/societal bystanders • Allow others to identify specific targets and mete out justice or attempt to control process

11. Reactions • By-standers + WB targets = retaliation and high costs for WB • Bystanders +silence = neutralization of WB • Bystanders +WB=improved possibility of righting the wrong with decreased risk of retaliation