Logo

The public needs whistleblowers

Look at what’s happening…
  • Freedom of information requests, which give the public access to government records, are becoming costly and they’re not filled completely, even after long delays.
  • Government oversight offices are being closed down, and watchdog groups are sidelined.
  • Ownership of the media by a few big corporations is preventing the public from getting the real story about wrongdoing, particularly if it involves business.
  • Governments are allowing many industries to self-regulate, removing public accountability for what should be the public's business.
  • Funding cuts are forcing reductions in environmental protection and health care and the public never sees the impact until after the damage is done.
  • Public sector workers are increasingly gagged in their ability to inform the public about wrongdoing.
 
 
To stay informed, the public needs whistle blowers — and whistle blowers need protection in their collective agreements.

 
 
 
Why do they need protection?
Many employees who become aware of wrongdoing try to right the wrong by going through channels within the organization. That means they often end up reporting to the alleged wrongdoers themselves and nothing happens. If anything, the employee is cautioned not to get involved.
 
If, out of deep ethical or professional concern, they do “go public,” employees face the prospect of being fired or demoted. Even if they’re not fired, they can be made to feel cornered or isolated — victims of a poisoned work environment.
Unions have already provided a valuable service to society by working hard to win provisions in collective agreement that protect people from sexual and racial harassment. Now we need the same kind of protection for whistleblowers.
When an employee has gone through all the internal channels without resolution, the collective agreement should provide for a third party process, such as arbitration.
 
The collective agreement should also contain a clause regarding the poisoned work environment.
The clause would prohibit “subjecting an employee to conduct that would be considered by a reasonable person to interfere with the climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person. It includes withdrawal or reassignment of work assignments for no justifiable reason and objectionable or unprofessional conduct or comments which serve no legitimate work purpose directed toward a specific person. It has the effect of creating an “intimidating, humiliating, hostile or offensive work environment.”
 
Whistleblower protection clauses
When an employee has gone through all the internal channels without resolution, the collective agreement should provide for a third party process, such as arbitration.
The collective agreement should also contain a clause regarding the poisoned work environment.
The clause would prohibit “subjecting an employee to conduct that would be considered by a reasonable person to interfere with the climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person. It includes withdrawal or reassignment of work assignments for no justifiable reason and objectionable or unprofessional conduct or comments which serve no legitimate work purpose directed toward a specific person. It has the effect of creating an intimidating, humiliating, hostile or offensive work environment.”
 
 
What are whistleblowers?

Whistleblowers are employees who believe that there are situations when the public interest overrides the interest of the organization they serve.

They inform the public or the authorities that the government ministry or private company where they work is involved in wrongdoing — such as corrupt, fraudulent, immoral or environmentally damaging activity. Some whistleblowers have been held up as conscientious heroes but many more have suffered for their actions. They’ve been fired, demoted or punished in other ways.

Whistleblower protection is essential to balance the loyalty employees owe to their employers against employee rights to freedom of expression and to disclosure in the public interest.

There can be no effective public interest unless the public has full knowledge of all relevant information on important issues so that citizens can make informed decisions. That principle underlies freedom of information laws. It applies equally to whistleblower protection.

Consider what happens when:
  • Building department employees see city managers disregard a building inspector's recommendations but can say nothing
  • Sewage workers see that shoddy management practices allow raw sewage to be released into the marine environment but are prevented from informing the public
  • Maintenance workers at an industrial plant see chemical effluent from their plant being illegally discharged into a drain thatleads to a river but fear for their jobs if they alert the municipal authority
  • A lab technologist knows that budget cutbacks threaten testing protocols in a hospital but is not allowed to say anything

The public has a right to know about these situations but will find out only if employees are protected by whistleblower provisions in their collective agreements.

They should be heroes but…

Some government as well as private sector employees — whistleblower heroes — have risked their livelihoods and their careers to ensure that the public interest was well served:

  • Margaret Haydon and Shiv Chopra, drug evaluators for Health Canada, became concerned with the process that was being used to approve growth hormones for beef and dairy cattle. When their employer asked them to approve drugs, despite scientific recommendations to the contrary, Haydon and Chopra went to the media to raise their concerns. They were reprimanded. A judicial review later found that their actions were justifiable, and they should not have faced a reprimand.
  • Nancy Olivieri, a medical scientist at Toronto's Sick Children's Hospital, was threatened with a lawsuit by pharmaceutical maker Apotex if she published data showing risks from an Apotex drug. The hospital, concerned about losing revenue from drug companies, supported Apotex, and demoted Olivieri. It also launched a complaint against Olivieri with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but the College rejected the hospital's allegations and fully exonerated her.
  • Scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans criticized a high level agreement by the federal government to approve the Kemano Completion Project (to divert 87 per cent of Nechako River flows from the Nechako-Fraser system). They produced overwhelming scientific evidence showing that the impact on fish would be extreme. Eventually the scientists testified at BC Utility Commission hearings that led to cancellation of the project. At work, they faced a poisoned work environment and most resigned.
Why do they need protection?
Many employees who become aware of wrongdoing try to right the wrong by going through channels within the organization. That means they often end up reporting to the alleged wrongdoers themselves and nothing happens. If anything, the employee is cautioned not to get involved.
If, out of deep ethical or professional concern, they do “go public,” employees face the prospect of being fired or demoted. Even if they’re not fired, they can be made to feel cornered or isolated — victims of a poisoned work environment.
Unions have already provided a valuable service to society by working hard to win provisions in collective agreement that protect people from sexual and racial harassment. Now we need the same kind of protection for whistleblowers.
When an employee has gone through all the internal channels without resolution, the collective agreement should provide for a third party process, such as arbitration.
The collective agreement should also contain a clause regarding the poisoned work environment.
The clause would prohibit “subjecting an employee to conduct that would be considered by a reasonable person to interfere with the climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person. It includes withdrawal or reassignment of work assignments for no justifiable reason and objectionable or unprofessional conduct or comments which serve no legitimate work purpose directed toward a specific person. It has the effect of creating an “intimidating, humiliating, hostile or offensive work environment.”
 
Whistleblower protection clauses
When an employee has gone through all the internal channels without resolution, the collective agreement should provide for a third party process, such as arbitration.
The collective agreement should also contain a clause regarding the poisoned work environment.
The clause would prohibit “subjecting an employee to conduct that would be considered by a reasonable person to interfere with the climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person. It includes withdrawal or reassignment of work assignments for no justifiable reason and objectionable or unprofessional conduct or comments which serve no legitimate work purpose directed toward a specific person. It has the effect of creating an intimidating, humiliating, hostile or offensive work environment.”.

 



http://leas.ca/The-public-needs-whistleblowers.htm
Updated: December 2, 2005