Whistleblowing Code of Practice

etyka

Sygnaliści, demaskatorzy ( whistleblowers) w polskim systemie akademickim są szczególnie narażeni na mobbing a mimo to nie ma dla nich specjalnego kodeksu i  procedur zabezpieczających.

Jak to wygląda  w innych krajach ?

przykład – The University of Warwick (UK)

Whistleblowing Code of Practice

The University has a responsibility to manage itself legally, efficiently and fairly in the wider public interest and for the benefit of its staff, students, customers and collaborators.  This requires a free flow of information about serious shortcomings in any of its activities so that appropriate action may be taken.

This whistleblowing code makes provision for staff or students or anyone contractually connected with the University to raise concerns about serious malpractice within the University and to do so with the knowledge that their action will be viewed positively and that they will be protected from victimization…..

3.    To whom should a report be made?

A serious concern should normally be reported to the relevant Head of Department, or in the case of suspected theft or fraud to the Internal Auditor.  Where this is not felt to be appropriate, a report may be made orally or in writing to any one of the following:  the Chair of Council, the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar, the University Senior Tutor.

In extreme circumstances where none of the above is appropriate a report may be made to the Chair of the Audit Committee.

4.    What will happen next?

(a)    The recipient of the complaint in conjunction with one other senior colleague will undertake or commission whatever preliminary investigations and consultations are necessary to establish whether or not a further and formal enquiry should be instigated.

(b)    If it is decided not to establish a formal enquiry, the complainant shall be informed in writing with reasons within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.

(c)    If further investigation is deemed necessary by the recipient of the initial report and senior colleague, it shall be organised by the Registrar unless he/she is the subject of the complaint in which case the Vice-Chancellor shall act. The investigation may be conducted by an outside agency such as a firm of solicitors or accountants, or by a small group of senior academic and lay members of the University.

(d)    The investigating body will report its findings to the recipient of the initial report and he/she shall

(i)    take no further action save to inform the complainant of the decision and reasons for it

or    (ii)    refer the matter to the police in the case of alleged criminal

activities

or    (iii)    refer the matter for appropriate action within existing

University procedures

or    (iv)    refer the matter to the University Council.

5.    Confidentiality

Where requested, the identity of the whistleblower will be protected.  There may be circumstances, however, where it will not be possible to proceed without revealing the whistleblower’s identity, for example if the whistleblower’s evidence is needed at a disciplinary or court hearing.  Should this be the case, the matter will be discussed with the whistleblower at the earliest opportunity.

6.    Protection of whistleblowers

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides protection for the whistleblower against subsequent victimization by his/her employer.

A disclosure made within the University will be protected under the Act if the whistleblower has an honest and reasonable suspicion that malpractice has or is likely to occur.  A disclosure made externally (e.g. to the Police, media or MP) will be protected if the following additional tests are met:

(a)    that the whistleblower honestly and reasonably believes the information and any allegation contained in it are substantially true.

(b)    that the disclosure has not been made for personal gain.

(c)    that the concern has first been raised with the employer unless the whistleblower reasonably believes:

(i)    that he/she will be victimized or that there will be a cover-up

or    (ii)    that the matter is exceptionally serious.

Protection under the Act does not extend to students and other non-employees.  The University, however, is wholly committed to the protection of all bona fide whistleblowers whatever their status and will regard any subsequent victimization as a disciplinary offence.

7.    Anonymous Complaints

Anonymous complaints do not fall within this procedure.

8.    Malicious Allegations

False and malicious allegations may be treated as a disciplinary offence.

9.    Independent Review

When all internal procedures have been exhausted the complainant, if dissatisfied with the outcome, may ask for the matter to be referred for independent review.  The independent review shall be conducted by a person or persons appointed by the Council on the nomination of the President of The Law Society.

The purpose of the independent review will be:

(a)    to rule on whether the University’s internal investigation has been properly handled

(b)    where it is judged that the investigation was properly handled, to rule on whether the response to the complaint was reasonable in all the circumstances.

The powers of the person or persons conducting the independent review will include making binding recommendations of the following nature:

(c)    ordering a further internal investigation

(d)    ordering the University to reconsider the findings of the investigation.

Additionally, there shall be power to:

(e)    make non-binding observations relating to the substantive complaint for the institution to consider

(f)    rule, in appropriate cases, that

(i)    the complainant was actuated by malice, or some other personal or improper motive, and whether the complainant should be required to make a contribution to the costs incurred in external review

(ii)    the complaint was without substance or merit, and whether the complainant should be required to make a contribution to the costs incurred in external review.

(g)    The independent review will not entail oral hearings, but the reviewer will have the power to interview the complainant or any other persons, including those who had been involved in the handling of the complaint.  New evidence or relevant material will be considered at the discretion of the reviewer, but will normally be admitted only if it had not been reasonably available at the earlier stages of the internal investigation.

(h)    The report of the independent review will be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor, to the Council and the Audit Committee….

Reklamy

komentarzy 8

  1. CODES OF PRACTICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM
    STATEMENT ON WHISTLE-BLOWING

    http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/university.calendar/volumei/current/code.whistleblowing.pdf

    CODES OF PRACTICE
    CODES OF PRACTICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM
    STATEMENT ON WHISTLE-BLOWING
    1. The University is committed to maintaining the highest standards in the conduct of its activities,
    whether academic, financial, administrative, social or sporting. This commitment includes not
    merely the maintenance of academic freedom, but adherence to the University’s own statutes and
    regulations and to the standards in public life enunciated by the Committee on Standards in Public
    Life chaired by Lord Nolan and reflected in the Seven Principles of Public Life – selflessness,
    integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
    2. Members of the University are likely to be the first to know if this commitment were not being
    maintained and if, for instance, financial malpractice or the abrogation of agreed or statutory
    procedures or departures from the requirements of good governance were to take place.
    3. The University has established a number of procedures upon which individuals may call if they feel
    they have personally been discriminated against or unjustly treated. The contract of each member of
    staff sets out their individual grievance procedure. The Student Discipline and Academic Appeals
    procedures set out in General Regulations in the Calendar specify the appeal mechanisms open to the
    individual student. The Human Resources Handbook contains the Staff Disciplinary procedures and
    the procedure for suspected misconduct in research. The Code of Practice for Durham Students’ Union
    and the Code of Practice for Student Unions and JCRs (under review) in the Calendar sets out
    complaints procedures which the individual student may invoke against these bodies. Each college has
    its own student complaints procedure and there is a University-wide student complaints procedure
    covering complaints against departments, colleges, academic services and the University administration
    set out in the Calendar. The Calendar also sets out the Code of Practice on Respect at Work and Study,
    common to staff and students, which sets out the steps the individual should take if they wish to make a
    complaint of harassment. The Code of Practice on Freedom of Expression in the Calendar encourages
    the reporting of malpractice or maladministration and health or safety hazards without fear of reprisal.
    4. Boards of Studies’ Staff/Student Consultative Committees, College/Society Councils and ultimately the
    Committees of Senate and Council on which students are represented and those two bodies themselves
    all provide opportunities for students to raise collective concerns relevant to these bodies. Similar
    opportunities through Boards of Studies and Council and Senate Committees are available to many
    staff and all staff may raise concerns through the appropriate staff union.
    5. Occasions may, however, arise when a member of staff or student feels that financial or procedural
    malpractice is taking place and that the requirements of good governance are not being followed.
    Normally, staff should raise such concerns through their Head of Department and/or their union.
    Students should do so through their Head of Department or the President of their JCR or through a
    DSU officer.
    Nevertheless, there could be an occasion in which a member of staff or a student feels that their own
    position might be jeopardised if they were to raise a concern in this way and for some concerns the
    usual channels might be inappropriate.
    6. In these circumstances:
    (a) Allegations about an individual’s financial conduct should normally be made to the Head of
    Business Assurance, who can report directly to the Vice-Chancellor (as the Officer within the
    University designated by the University Council and by the Funding Council to be accountable
    for the control of the University’s funds), as well as reporting to the Audit Committee established
    by Council. The Head of Business Assurance will investigate the allegation and report to higher
    authority as appropriate. Where for whatever reason the person making the allegation considers it
    inappropriate to make it to the Head of Business Assurance the procedure in (b) applies.
    (b) Allegations about other issues, for example the behaviour of a Senior University Officer, or a lay
    member of the Council, or about the propriety of committee or other collective decisions, should
    be made, as the person making the allegation deems appropriate, to the Vice-Chancellor, the
    Registrar and Secretary or to the Chairman of Council. If for any reason none of these
    individuals is deemed appropriate, the allegation should be made to the Chair of the Audit
    Committee.
    7. In any case where an allegation has been made under paragraphs 6(a) or (b) the person to whom the
    allegation is made will make a record of its receipt and of what subsequent action is taken. The person
    to whom the allegation is made under this procedure or, more usually, a person or persons to whom the
    CODES OF PRACTICE
    matter is delegated will conduct the investigation. There will normally be two stages to the process of
    investigating allegations:
    (a) a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is a prima facie case for a full investigation
    (b) subject to (a), a full investigation.
    After appropriate consultation, the person(s) conducting the investigation may decide, at any stage, to
    refer the matter to the police or appropriate external bodies.
    8. No investigation will be carried out by the person whose duty it is to reach a decision on future action
    with respect to the allegation.
    9. Where no investigation is carried out, and the allegation is effectively dismissed, the person making the
    allegation shall be so informed and notified that they may refer the allegation to one of the other Senior
    Officers specified in paragraph 6(b) who will decide on whether an investigation should take place.
    10. After appropriate consultation, the person conducting the investigation must decide at what stage to
    inform the person or persons against whom the allegation is made. This must be done if it is decided to
    proceed to a (stage 2) full investigation, but could be during the preliminary (stage 1) investigation if
    required by the nature of the particular case. The person(s) against whom the allegation is made must
    be informed both of the allegation, and of the evidence, supporting it, and must be allowed to comment
    before the investigation is concluded and a report made. The results of the investigation will be
    reported to the Audit Committee.
    11. An allegation under paragraphs 6(a) or (b) will normally be regarded as confidential to the receiver and
    those delegated to investigate the matter until a full (stage b) investigation is launched. Thereafter the
    identity of the person making the allegation may be kept confidential, if requested, unless this is
    incompatible with a fair investigation, or if there is an overriding reason for disclosure (for example, if
    police involvement is required). Provided the allegation has been made lawfully, without malice and in
    the public interest, neither the employment position of a member of staff nor the academic prospects of
    any student will be disadvantaged for reasons of making the allegation.
    12. It is the responsibility of the individual receiving the report of an investigation to decide either to
    endorse a conclusion that the allegation was without substance or to initiate appropriate action in the
    light of the findings and to ensure that both the person making the allegation and the person against
    whom the allegation is made are notified of their decision.
    13. This procedure does not affect the right of staff to refer a matter within his jurisdiction to the Visitor or
    students to refer the matter to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

  2. Guidance on Whistleblowing

    http://www.shef.ac.uk/cuc/guide/2k.html

    1. Universities and colleges of higher education, like other public bodies, have a duty to conduct their affairs in a responsible and transparent way and to take into account both the requirements of funding bodies (including of course the Funding Councils) and the standards in public life enunciated in Lord Nolan’s Reports. In addition they are committed to the principles of academic freedom embodied in their own charters, statutes and articles of government, and enshrined in the Education Reform Act 1988.

    2. Members of staff are often the first to know then things are going wrong in an institution whether these concern questions of financial malpractice, the abrogation of appropriate and agreed procedures or departures from the statutory or other requirements for good governance. All institutions of higher education should establish official channels through which such concerns can be raised, for example through heads of departments, at official committees or through staff representatives, including the accredited trades’ unions. In the normal course of events concerns should be raised through these channels. But members of staff often feel, rightly or wrongly, that their own position in the institution will be jeopardised if they raise a particular concern in this way, and sometimes the usual channels may, indeed, be inappropriate. Good practice would suggest that:

    Allegations of injustices or discrimination against individuals should be dealt with under established procedures approved by the governing body or, if it is a student grievance, through the machinery established by the institution for this purpose.
    Allegations about an individual’s financial conduct should normally be made to the head of internal audit. He/sheis required to have a direct reporting relationship with the Vice Chancellor/Principal/Chief Executive as the Officer within the institution who is designated by the governing body and by the Funding Council to be accountable for the control of the institution’s funds, and to the Audit Committee established by the governing body. Internal audit should investigate the allegation or report to higher authority as appropriate. Where for whatever reason the person making the allegation considers it inappropriate to make it to the headof internal audit the provisions of paragraph (c) apply.
    Allegations about other issues, for example the behaviour of a senior officer of the institution, or a lay/independent member of the governing body, or about the propriety of committee or other collective decisions should be made, as the person making the allegation deems appropriate, to the Vice-Chancellor/Principal/Chief Executive, the Secretary/Registrar/Clerk to the governing body or to the Chairman of the governing body. If for any reason none of these individuals is deemed to be appropriate the allegation should be made to the Chairman of the Audit Committee.
    3. In any case where an allegation has been made under paragraphs (b) and (c) the person to whom the allegation is made should made a record of its receipt and of what subsequent action was taken. Any allegation made under this procedure shall normally be the subject of a preliminary investigation either by the person to whom the allegation is made or more usually by a person or persons appointed by him/her. Institutions should take steps to ensure that investigations are not carried out by the person who may ultimately have to reach a decision on the matter. Where no investigation is carried out, and the allegation is effectively dismissed, the person making the allegations shall be informed and given the opportunity to remake the allegation to some other person or authority within the institution. This need not be done where an allegation is dismissed after an investigation. Where an allegation is made the person or persons against whom the allegation is made must be told of the allegation, the evidence supporting it, and be allowed to comment before the investigation is concluded and a report made. The results of the investigation shall be reported to the Audit Committee.

    4. Any person making an allegation under paragraphs (b) or (c) should be guaranteed that the allegation shall be regarded as confidential to the receiver until a formal investigation is launched. Thereafter the identity of the person making the allegation may be kept confidential, if requested, unless this is incompatible with a fair investigation, or if there is an overriding reason for disclosure (for example, if policy involvement is required). Provided the allegation has been made lawfully, without malice and in the public interest, the employment position of the person should not be disadvantaged for reasons of making the allegation.

    Institutions may wish to consider using the policy check list proposed by Public Concern at Work so far as it may be deemed to apply to circumstances in institutions of higher education.

  3. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
    POLICY FOR PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS FROM RETALIATION AND
    GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWING RETALIATION COMPLAINTS
    (WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION POLICY)

    http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/10-04-02retaliation.pdf

    Policy
    The University of California is committed to protecting employees and applicants for
    employment from interference with making a protected disclosure or retaliation for
    having made a protected disclosure or for having refused an illegal order as defined in
    this policy. This policy is derived from the California Whistleblower Protection Act
    (Government Code Sections 8547-8547.12). Pursuant to this code section, a University
    employee may not: (1) retaliate against an employee or applicant for employment who
    has made a protected disclosure or who has refused to obey an illegal order, nor (2)
    directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the official authority or influence of his or her
    position or office for the purpose of interfering with the right of an applicant or an
    employee to make a protected disclosure to the University Auditor, the employee’s
    immediate supervisor or other appropriate administrator or supervisor within the
    operating unit, the locally designated University official as defined in the University’s
    Whistleblower Policy, or the State of California Bureau of State Audits about matters
    within the scope of this policy. It is the intention of the University to take whatever
    action may be needed to prevent and correct activities that violate this policy……

  4. Welcome to the Victoria University Whistleblower Protection

    http://wcf.vu.edu.au/WhistleBlower/

  5. http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

    Whistleblower (z ang. „gwizdkowy, dmuchający w gwizdek” [rzecz.]) – ten, który bije na alarm lub zdradza spisek. Jest to termin znany i stosowany w Anglii, USA, Kanadzie, Australii, Nowej Zelandii, Afryce Południowej.
    Whistleblower bierze na siebie uwrażliwienie opinii publicznej na malwersacje, akty korupcji, czy pogwałcenia prawa w jednostkach budżetowych i urzędach administracji państwowej, w których pracuje. Chodzi tu o zjawisko specyficznego donosicielstwa. Polega ono na tym, że określeni pracownicy informują osoby odpowiedzialne za sprawy etyczne i dyscyplinarne o nieuczciwości, nierzetelności lub złamaniu kodeksu etycznego czy prawa przez innych pracowników. Wiąże się to z mobbingiem, dlatego że osoby te (nazywane czasem sygnalistami), mają problemy w swoim środowisku pracy, są nierzadko prześladowane, poniżane przez współpracowników.
    Na Zachodzie zwłaszcza w Stanach Zjednoczonych i w Australii, istnieją instytucje, które chronią takie osoby. W USA jest to organizacja, która nazywa się National Whistleblower Center. Instytucja ta działa we wszystkich stanach i zajmuje się lobbingiem w celu ochrony osób informujących na przykład o fakcie korupcji.
    W 2002 roku, za działalność tego rodzaju, tygodnik Time przyznał tytuł Człowieka Roku pracownicom FBI, Worldcomu i Enronu.

Skomentuj

Wprowadź swoje dane lub kliknij jedną z tych ikon, aby się zalogować:

Logo WordPress.com

Komentujesz korzystając z konta WordPress.com. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Zdjęcie z Twittera

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Twitter. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Facebook photo

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Facebook. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Google+ photo

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Google+. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Connecting to %s

%d blogerów lubi to: