Whistleblowing: the cost of blurring the lines between knowing and doing

Home Articles ADVICE & GUIDANCE Whistleblowing: the cost of blurring the lines between knowing and doing
a
DSC e

David Owen, former head of the national insurance policy at The Treasury, was awarded £142,000 after the Treasury declined to reemploy him, refusing to carry out a previous tribunal’s ruling that he should be found another job.

Mr Owen was dismissed after making public his concerns that staff were attempting to suffocate a proposal by Treasury minister, David Gauke, claiming that colleagues were deliberately placing excessive emphasis on the risks associated with the policy, which eventually caused it to be dropped.

The tribunal had stated that David Owen’s dismissal was ‘seriously flawed in a number of important respects’ and ordered that Mr Owen be reengaged at the Treasury. Unbeknownst to those outside of their Treasury, the tribunal order was ignored and the reasons why were never made clear.

This ruling is important for the following reasons:

  • It has highlighted the potential scale of penalties facing organisations who don’t comply with the protected disclosure (whistleblowing) regulation. The Treasury were ordered to pay close to a 100% increase on the previous cap of £76,574.
  • It has exposed the contradictions within the government, between advocating whistleblower protection in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and yet failing to deliver this endorsement in practice. Rather than support a whistleblower, they chose to victimise an employee who spoke out against unfair practice.
  • The government’s error, followed by a stubborn refusal to acknowledge a string of mistakes, has ended up costing the taxpayer a rumoured £500,000 in defence costs, on top of the £142,000 compensation package awarded to Mr Owen. It’s clear failing of policy and principle, compounded by huge financial loss.

When it comes to employment law, it is not enough just to agree with the law, but an organisation must also practice the law. The latter is more difficult, and can require learning and application, but the costs of change are often better than penalties associated with no change.

Share:
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Social Media

Latest Posts

RIDDOR Landing page v x

What are RIDDOR Regulations & What are Employer’s Responsibilities for RIDDOR Reportable Incidents?

Firstly many people ask what RIDDOR means, RIDDOR stands for reporting injuries diseases, and dangerous occurrences. Accidents at work can happen, even with the best …

An Employer Guide to Disciplinary Action and Police Investigations

An Employer’s Guide to Disciplinary Action and Police Investigations

Without wishing to delve too heavily into the current (alleged) political shenanigans, there has been much discussion about the announcement of an investigation by the …

covid vaccine 800x296 1

Your Complete Guide to Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccinations

Earlier this month the government announced that The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 amendment had been passed by Parliament. The …

working from home

Can employers adjust sick pay for unvaccinated workers?

Can employers adjust sick pay for unvaccinated workers? There has been a lot of media coverage recently about various companies who are reducing sick pay …

working from home

Working from home: FAQs for employers

This week the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson announced the implementation of Plan B of its COVID-19 winter response due to rising numbers of COVID-19 cases …

On Key

Related Posts