Whistleblowing Code of Practice

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….

UWAGA: Sygnaliści są narażeni na mobbing

 

Jak chronić i doceniać tych, którzy informują o nieprawidłowościach?

Portal organizacji strażniczych

30 marca 2009 Program „Przeciw Korupcji” Fundacji im. Stefana Batorego, przygotował konferencję pt. „Whistleblowing – ochrona prawna osób informujących o nieprawidłowościach w miejscu pracy: skuteczność polskiego prawa pracy na tle regulacji anglosaskich oraz prac Grupy Państw Przeciwko Korupcji (GRECO)”.

Konferencja miała na celu przedstawienie jak wygląda ochrona prawna demaskatorów w Polsce i jak reguluje się to w innych krajach. Przy okazji pojawiło się sporo dylematów, które należą bardziej do sfery obyczajów i kultury społecznej, niż związane są z prawem, ale mają istotny wpływ na funkcjonowanie legislacji i procedur.

Najważniejsze chyba z takich zjawisk to negatywne postrzeganie osób, które przeciwstawiają się swojemu środowisku i informują o nadużyciach. W Polsce mamy na taką postawę liczne obraźliwe „synonimy”: Najbardziej popularne i automatyczne to „kapuś”, „donosiciel”, „ktoś, kto kala własne gniazdo”. Takie podejście nie jest zresztą specyfiką polską, bo jak wynikało z prezentacji ekspertów, podobne problemy z akceptacją społeczną postawy demaskatora występowały we wszystkich praktycznie krajach.

Typowy schemat postępowania pracodawców wobec informatorów polega na stopniowym odsuwaniu od odpowiedzialnych działań, marginalizowaniu, psychicznym obciążaniu, a w ostateczności zwalnianiu w wyniku likwidacji stanowiska pracy. Sądy pracy z kolei badają jedynie, czy likwidacja stanowiska pracy faktycznie nastąpiła, zaś pozostałe okoliczności wykraczają nieco poza ich kompetencje.