Bullying leads to a dozen water police officer resignations, whistleblower claims

David Hurley, Herald Sun

November 27, 2016 7:00pm

AN exodus of experienced Water Police officers has left the unit exposed and will put lives at risk this summer, a whistleblower says.

The squad has been hit by accusations of bullying and mismanagement, causing officers to go and leaving some recruits unqualified to drive all the boats in the unit’s fleet.

An insider told the Herald Sun the unit, which has about 50 officers, has lost a dozen during the past 18 months because of “a toxic culture”.

Five officers have joined the Australian Border Force while others have transferred elsewhere within Victoria Police.

One officer was bullied to the point where he developed an alcohol problem and drank before starting his shifts as a coping mechanism, according to the whistleblower.
“Members who have left possess thousands of sea days of experience,” he said.
“There is now a massive skill shortage and lives could be in danger.”

It’s claimed:

A SENIOR officer publicly referred to a junior officer’s deaf son as a “retard”.

THE same officer took photographs of a drunk female colleague at a Christmas party and showed the pictures to the unit’s morning shift crew the next day.

THE senior officer, who has since left the unit, would also visit mussel merchants at Williamstown Pier and Portarlington and demand they donate a box of mussels for “the boys” at the Water Police.

In a statement Victoria Police said it had investigated the allegations and found them to be unsubstantiated.

In a letter sent to IBAC, the whistleblower wrote: “I write to you with a genuine concern about the rapid increase in systemic bullying, that has consistently occurred ...

“The pattern of behaviour, spanning in excess of 12 months ... continues to escalate beyond acceptable levels of workplace bullying, usually tolerated in a state government workplace.”

Another source told the Herald Sun:

“We are supposed to be on the same side ... this is the police.
“Morale in the Water Police is at an all-time low.

“It is ruled like a dictatorship. Management have swept these issues under the carpet.”

Victoria Police spokesman Inspector Ian Geddes said: “All staff are trained and supported to achieve relevant qualifications and experience during their tenure at the Water Police. The Water Police has and will have into the future appropriate levels of trained and qualified personnel to carry out the duties required.

“Sufficient numbers of qualified people are maintained to perform the required function and operate the vessels as required. “As a result of an allegation of workplace bullying, a workplace cultural review of the Water Police was conducted.

“As a result of this review it was identified that concerns raised did not amount to workplace bullying.”

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/bullying-leads-to-a-dozen-water-police-officer-resignations-whistleblower-claims/news-story/0564f54adc0806e4cf9f32049c556d26

Sexual Harassment at Work: 9 Women Talk About Their Employee Experience

Nine Women Talk About On-The-Job Harassment

1. Marie Billiel, 27

Boston

It started pretty quickly, within the first two weeks that I was working at the diner. One of the cooks grabbed my wrist and tried to pull me into the walk-in freezer where there aren’t any cameras, because he wanted to kiss me. I said no. I pulled away, went back out. I was 18 and didn’t know how to deal with it.

We were whistled at all the time. Some girls were oinked at. They would watch pornography on their cell phones and then try to show it to us. I was kissed without my consent. There were other women there who got straight-up groped. If I resisted their advances, they would retaliate by “forgetting” to make my food or burning my orders or making other people’s orders first. My tip goes down because of that.
There was one point where I was in a walk-in freezer with a cook who was consistently trying to get me to go out with him. One of the other cooks shut the door on us and turned the lights out as this man was approaching me and asking if he could bite me. [It] was less than five minutes, but at the time it feels like an eternity.
I told one of my managers. She passed it along to the owner, and nothing was done. I heard the reason was because they’d heard that I had already been sexual with him, which is not the word they used. That was untrue, but they decided they weren’t going to intervene based on something they’d heard through the grapevine.
[After Billiel left the diner and, in 2014, blogged about her experiences, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Massachusetts attorney general’s office filed separate complaints. The diner settled without admitting to any wrongdoing. Billiel and at least nine other women will share a settlement of between $112,000 and $200,000.]
Receiving a settlement doesn’t necessarily feel good. The diner closed. I still had friends who worked there, and I’m not any less traumatized; I’m not any less assaulted.

2. Anonymous, 32*

Washington, D.C.

I work for a political group. We do a lot of networking events. When you get people out of an office setting, they change. This one time I was at an event, standing in a room full of 300 people, and an elected official came up behind me, grabbed me, and then put his hand between my legs. A colleague saw it happen. He pulled me into the hallway and said, “If you don’t tell your boss, I will.” So I did. Having someone else see it validated my story. The man couldn’t claim I was flirting with him or it didn’t happen.

I know the elected official was talked to. I would’ve liked to see him banned from our meetings, but he wasn’t. One time he caught me after a meeting and said, “I was out of line, I was drinking, and I know that’s no excuse, but I’m sorry.” That was three years ago. I still see him, but it’s better now.
I actually wrote the sexual-harassment policy for our organization’s meetings after that. We didn’t have a formal one. I mean, it’s 2016 for God’s sake.
*For the women who asked to remain anonymous, we have verified their names, place of employment at the time of the incident, and the names of the alleged harassers.

3. Alexandra Marchuk, 30

Jacksonville, Fla.

I worked at Faruqi & Faruqi my second summer of law school. They offered me a job when I graduated in 2011. It’s a small civil litigation firm in New York. The two founders are brother and sister, but the partners are mostly men. There were some female attorneys and of course women paralegals and receptionists. Midway through that [first] summer, Juan Monteverde was hired. He specializes in intervening in mergers on behalf of shareholders, saying the disclosures you’re making are insufficient. He was really good at his job, sort of the rainmaker.

Juan had said some weird things to me when I worked there over the summer. Once we’d been out at dinner, and he joked in front of other people that I should give him a blow job for picking up the check. I didn’t know until right before I started that I’d be working directly for him. I was hesitant, but I also had $250,000 in student loan debt and was really happy to have a job.
On my third day at work, we’d just come back from a court hearing and were having a drink at a bar when Juan started kissing me. He asked me to go have sex with him. I was like, “What? No.” He started making comments all the time. He’d touch me in the elevator when I couldn’t get away. He kept inviting me out on his boat. He’d comment about my body in front of other people at the firm, asking me to go to hearings with him so I could be “eye candy” for the judge.
A few weeks into this, one of the female partners took me out to dinner, and I told her what was going on. I got the sense later that she talked to people about him, but nothing was done. So I just ... I don’t know. It went on and on. We did a case involving a company called BJ’s Wholesale, and he’d joke in front of another attorney about how much he liked getting BJs. Sometimes it wasn’t even sexual. He’d just do things like make me work all weekend on something that wasn’t necessary; or he’d threaten to fire me knowing I had all this student debt; or he said he’d chip in on my rent if I let him sleep over at my apartment.
I dreaded going into the office. I had to police everything I said and did and what I wore. I remember one time I was visiting home, and my mom took me shopping at Brooks Brothers. There was a pencil skirt she wanted me to buy, but I said, “No, Juan would comment on it.” I paid attention to when other people left for the day so I wasn’t alone. It took an incredible amount of energy to make sure I wasn’t putting myself in a dangerous position. And I still had to do the actual work.
I had this plan to wait until I got some experience and then jump ship. I was trying to strike this balance—don’t complain so you don’t get fired. In December [2011], I’d been there three months, and we were at the firm’s holiday party. I started talking to Juan about yearend bonuses, and he said he wouldn’t recommend me for one. We’d been drinking, and he said we should go back to the office, and I agreed. That’s when he—we ...
(cries)
[In a lawsuit Marchuk later filed against Monteverde and the firm, she said that back in the empty office, he “quickly, forcefully, and painfully had sex with her.” In his own court filing, Monteverde disputed her account.]
I actually went to work for two days after that, but the second night I was like, “I can’t do this.” I called my mom, and she drove into the city and picked me up.
I filed a lawsuit. I had gotten a full-time job in Omaha before I filed, and I’m still with that company. They let me deal with it in the best kind of way. So on that front, I was OK. But I didn’t think it would be covered so closely by law blogs or followed by the law community. There are details in there that, when you Google me—I mean, bloodstains on the carpet. One of my close friends thought to e-mail every single person in her firm about it. It was entertainment for a lot of people.
The firm denied it. [Monteverde said the relationship was consensual.] They countersued me for $15 million, claiming I was “obsessed” with him. The lies they told don’t even make sense. They said I hadn’t been eligible for a bonus. Well, I kept my offer letter, and it says I’m eligible for a bonus. They claimed I’d e-mailed the lawsuit to Juan and his wife and the firm’s clients. But it turned out that the IP address where the e-mail came from was within Faruqi, after I’d already quit. They ended up dropping the countersuit.
I was deposed for a full day. All of the named defendants got to sit in the room and look at me as I did it. They had a psychologist evaluate me. It was a three-hour session in the library of an attorney’s law firm, and he asked a lot of questions about my hobbies. It seemed to bother everyone that I had gone hiking on a vacation once during all of this. They asked a lot of questions about how I paid for the vacation. They decided not to use the psychologist in the trial, so I don’t know what the point of that was.
The trial went on for weeks and was insanely stressful. I read discovery from some of my friends, and what they said about me in e-mails and Gchats behind my back. By the time the jury had their verdict, so much had been argued that I didn’t know what to expect. [Marchuk lost under federal and New York state harassment law, but won under New York City’s human-rights law and was awarded $140,000. In a postdecision interview with the Above the Law blog, a juror explained that the jury didn’t believe Monteverde’s sexual advances were entirely unwelcome, that Marchuk’s private e-mails contained contradictory messages about how she felt about the law firm, and that the firm had dutifully recorded what Marchuk told the female partner about Monteverde’s actions.]
The decision was disappointing but well within the range of anything that could have happened. You just don’t know. It’s just a bunch of strangers who get to judge whether or not you deserved it.
In a statement, Faruqi & Faruqi founding partner Lubna Faruqi says the law firm “takes the safety and well-being of our team members very seriously. We have policies and procedures regarding employment issues, including but not limited to, harassment and discrimination in the workplace. We considered Ms. Marchuk’s complaint to be without merit and vigorously defended ourselves in New York federal court.” Monteverde didn’t respond to a request for comment.

4. Anonymous, 41

Los Angeles

I started at DreamWorks around the winter holidays, so there were a lot of parties. That’s where I met him. He’d stop by my office, send me e-mails asking if I wanted to have lunch. One night he invited me to sushi for dinner. He said it would be a big group of co-workers. When I got to the restaurant, though, there was nobody else there. I ate dinner to be polite, but then I went home, because it was weird.

He started e-mailing me multiple messages a day. He sent me flowers. He’d say things like, “A friend of mine is a pilot and could fly us to Catalina Island for the weekend,” or “Do you want to go on a hot air balloon ride in the desert?” It was never, “Hey, let’s get coffee.” I turned him down, but he would just keep asking. And asking. And asking.
I stopped being polite and started flat out telling him no. That made him escalate. I eventually told my supervisor and was like, “Am I overreacting? Is this guy crossing the line?” I wasn’t sure. My supervisor said, “Absolutely he is. He should not be sending you flowers and asking you out when you tell him not to.” He said he’d talk to him. That was it. Everything stopped.
I learned later from my supervisor that they’d had other issues with him. Two other women complained about him after I did. I know they take this stuff very seriously there, and I’ve always felt very safe. But he still works at the studio. He’s had promotions.
DreamWorks declined to comment.

5. Anonymous, 32

San Diego

The first firm I worked for after law school, I was a junior associate. The head of paralegal was a guy who was about 20 years older than me. Because I’m an attorney, I was above him. He took great issue with this. He’d say things to me like, “Why are you always such a b----?” “Why are you a hard ass?” It was offensive and all, but it was just talk. I just thought he had something in his craw about a woman of color being his superior.

One day he came into my office, closed the door, and grabbed me. It was so sudden I was like, “What is going on?” He got me in this bear hug. He’s a much bigger guy than me, and I couldn’t move. He started shoving his hands up my shirt. I told him to stop it right now, or I’ll scream. The walls were thin, and I knew all I had to do was make noise, and someone could come in. He stopped.
I didn’t say anything to anyone about it. The owner of the firm wasn’t very good at dealing with conflict. If I had reported it, I’m pretty sure I would have gotten fired. They’d come up with an excuse. This was in 2010 or so, and legal jobs were really scarce. Instead, I just made sure other people were always around. Pretty soon after that, we moved to another office, and I shared office space with someone, so I was rarely alone. Even so, I still felt on edge. It’s a hard feeling to describe, because once it’s there, it’s always present. It was a harsh transition into the real world. It goes against everything I believe, but honestly the best way to deal with that is to just blow it off.

6. Magdalena Zylinska, 45

Elmwood Park, Ill.

In one of the houses I used to clean, the man was always taking his clothes off. He expected us to clean while he was working naked. Sometimes he would ask if you wanted to touch him. I didn’t know whether to run or stay and work or what. I had a mortgage. I had a kid. I needed the money. At the time I was undocumented. So I stayed, but I made sure that when I cleaned his house, there was always someone with me. I’d tell them, “If I scream, you just run and call the police.” When I left [his house], I tried to think about something else, not about the problems. But the first couple of years, it was really, really bad. You’d be working, and he’s nowhere around, and you go to the basement to do laundry, and he’s there on the treadmill, naked.

After three years or so, I just told him, you either look for somebody else or I’m going to call the police. He stopped. I guess he kind of respected me for saying something. I still clean for him, and sometimes he asks, “Can I get naked?” I’m like, “No.”
To protect Zylinska, who still works for the client, we didn’t contact the homeowner for verification.

7. Julia, 28

San Francisco

I had recently switched teams at Google and had received a new manager as a result. I was in my early 20s and was the most junior member on our team. I was also the only woman.

When I was still new to the role, we had a week of team-bonding events planned. This was the first time I’d spent extended time with my manager. He made a number of highly inappropriate comments to me in professional and after-work events: comparing women from different Asian countries, telling me that every guy goes through an Asian fetish, asking me to sit on his lap (I didn’t), telling me about his sex life during a one-on-one meeting, and asking me to touch the flesh of his palm as a way of describing why he had developed a strong sex drive at an early age. I responded with nervous laughter and by changing the topic. In retrospect, I still feel shame and regret for not standing up for myself in the moment. Did my nervous laughter egg him on or give him implicit consent to keep going? Why didn’t I tell him to his face, immediately, that this was misogynist, racist, and unprofessional? He was my direct superior.
At work, I couldn’t focus. I lost my motivation. I was enraged at him for making these comments and angry at myself for not being stronger. I struggled with whether or not I should report my manager to HR, or if I should keep my head down and let it go. I was scared that I was blowing things out of proportion. He was well-respected on the team, and I was concerned about what might happen to our team if he was disciplined or even fired. What would happen if his wife found out, and I ruined their marriage? I couldn’t make sense of why I continued to feel such empathy amidst my anger. It took me two to three weeks, but ultimately I decided to report his behavior to HR.
HR set up an interview with me so I could recount what happened. They asked for the names of people who might have witnessed the events, as well as specific times and locations. I cried. It was humiliation all over again. From there, they worked on corroborating my story with the witnesses I provided and also talked to my manager to get his side of the story. Afterward, they provided me with a summary of their findings, a vague statement that disciplinary action was taken and that it should never happen again, and assurances that Google had a no-retaliation policy in effect, so I should be protected in my own career. They also checked in to see how I was feeling after everything.
I don’t know the specifics of how Google reprimanded him, but I know that he was given additional sexual-harassment training. He apologized to me for his actions and promised not to do them again. He remained my manager for another year but was very careful to only act professionally. He’s still at Google today.
On the whole, I felt like Google and the HR department were on my side. They took my concerns seriously. But it took a long time to rebuild my self-confidence. Later when I was promoted, I wondered if I deserved the promotion or if it was given to me out of guilt.
Google declined to comment. We reached out to the manager for comment but didn’t receive a response.

8. Anonymous, 34

Missoula, Mont.

For two years starting in 2002, I worked a summer job at a horse farm. I was doing things like setting up jumps [and] putting holes in the ground for fence posts. I worked with farm laborers who were all illegal. They were an all-male crew. Hispanic. The guy who hired me, who paid me—in cash, by the way—was this older, 50-year-old guy named H. He is also sort of related to me: H. is married to my dad’s first wife.

One of the first incidents I remember was when we were washing off fencing for the steeplechase course. I was wearing Carhartt pants and a white T-shirt. H. came around to check on what we were doing. He made this comment: “I should require you to wear white shirts and always be wet while you’re working.”
Every time I ran into him after that, there’d be a little comment about the size of my breasts or how he needed to hug me, because it’d make his day better. As he’d hug me, he’d say, “I love feeling you press up against me.” It’s so gross to talk about it even now.
Sometimes he said this stuff in front of other people, but most of the time it was the illegal workers—who were great, by the way, always respectful. I think if they hadn’t been illegal, they probably would’ve said something. But around certain people he’d act normal. I used to like to build fences with this one man in his 50s, because when I was with him, H. wouldn’t say anything when he came by. I don’t know if it was because he was older, or English-speaking, or what. My primary way of dealing with the situation was to avoid him. He’s out of shape and smokes a lot, and I knew if I was building a fence in a field somewhere, I was safer because he wouldn’t bother to go out there.
I worked there the next summer, too. I know you’re going to ask why, but I really loved that job. I love working outside. It’s hard as a woman to get someone to hire you to do manual labor. I applied at a few other stables, but they didn’t look twice at me. Also, part of me was like, maybe I’m being too sensitive. Now it’s so clear to me that’s not at all the case, but at the time I thought, well, maybe the problem was me.
I didn’t even think about reporting him. It just wasn’t an option. He’s probably not even going to remember a lot of the instances that caused me so much stress, because to him it was another day at work.

9. Cynthia Brzak, 64

Geneva

I started working at the United Nations in 1979. In December 2003, I was in a meeting with six men, including Ruud Lubbers, the UN’s high commissioner for refugees, who used to be prime minister of the Netherlands. When I got up to leave, two men on my side of the table stepped back to let me pass in front of them, but Mr. Lubbers grabbed me from behind, pulled me against him, and shoved his groin into me. I was in shock. When I got out of the room and by the elevators, the director of human resources said, “Oh, Cynthia, I saw what the high commissioner tried to do!”

At a follow-up meeting to what we’d been talking about, I was waiting for the elevators to go up to the office, and the director of human resources comes up to me laughing and says, “Cynthia, what are you going to do if Mr. Lubbers tries it again?” He makes like to grab me again, and I’m ducking out of his way. I said, “Why didn’t you protect me ... or at least say something? You’re the director of human resources!” As the elevator doors closed, he replied, “So?”
For two whole months I didn’t do anything. I never told my best friends, my family, nobody. You have to realize, I’d been there 24 years. We have code of conduct training, we played the game, mouthing the politically correct stuff. But I knew what the culture was really like.
Six-thousand staff members chose me to speak with management about personnel matters. [Brzak was staff council representative.] If I didn’t say “Enough!” who would? So a few months later, I reported it. An internal investigation verified everything and recommended Mr. Lubbers be reprimanded. But Kofi Annan, who was secretary-general at the time, decided not to do anything. I wasn’t allowed to see the report; it was mailed to me anonymously six months later. In 2006, I sued. But UN employees have diplomatic immunity. I took my case to U.S. District Court in New York, which upheld the immunity. I appealed. In 2010 we petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if the diplomatic immunity was even constitutional. They declined to hear the case. So that was it.
When I sued, it made the news, and all of a sudden then Lubbers gets asked to leave.
I worked at the UN until November 2010, when I accepted an agreed-upon separation package. I’ve had a hard time finding a new job. Had I known back in 2004 that my weird last name would be so Google-able that when even my children apply for jobs, they’d be asked, “What happened to your mother?” I don’t know if I would have done it.
Contacted through his personal website, Lubbers didn’t respond to requests for comment.

—With Josh Eidelson

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-sexual-harassment-policy/#/nine-women-talk-about-harassment

Horror in UK Hospital as Bully Nurses are 'struck off' after worst hospital scandals in living memory!

The bullies who will never nurse patients again: Pair who ruled A&E unit at scandal-hit Stafford hospital 'with fear' and covered up neglect are struck off

• Sharon Turner and Tracy White falsified A&E discharge times
• They wanted to hit target for patients to be dealt with in four hours
• Hearing told some racist staff even forced black patients to wait longer

Sharon Turner, left, and Tracy White, right, falsified Accident and Emergency discharge times to avoid missing a government goal for patients to be dealt with within four hours. A string of allegations was found proved including Turner instructing nurses to ‘lie’ about waiting times in A&E and saying she planned to make another nurse’s life ‘hell and get rid of him in six months’.

Two senior nurses at the centre of one of the worst hospital scandals in living memory have been struck off.
Sharon Turner, 48, and Tracy White, 52, stood accused of ruling the A&E unit at Mid Staffordshire ‘with fear’ by bullying other nurses into covering-up the appalling neglect of patients.
They are the first two nurses from the trust to be struck off. Up to 1,200 patients are feared to have died there unnecessarily between 2005 and 2009.

 

 

Disciplined: Tracy White, left, and Sharon Turner, right, faked patient records to meet targets at scandal-hit Stafford Hospital. Today, they were struck off 

This year a damning report into the scandal concluded that ‘appalling and unnecessary suffering’ was inflicted on hundreds of patients who were left ‘unwashed, unfed and without fluids’.
But until now, not a single doctor or nurse had been struck off or even lost their job over the failings, to the dismay of grieving families.

More...

• Whitehall's straight talk: Civil servants told to stop using jargon that confuses people about what the Government are doing

Yesterday the Nursing and Midwifery Council banned the two nurses from ever practising again for undermining the public’s faith in the profession.
The panel ruled they had conspired to fiddle the figures on waiting times ‘with sheer dishonesty’ and had ‘coerced and frightened’ other more junior nurses to do the same.

Horrific: Up to 1,200 people died unnecessarily at the 'horror hospital' as managers put benchmarks above patient care

Mrs Turner, who lives in Cannock, Staffordshire, admitted to the three-strong panel she had once said she ‘did not give a flying f***’ about one of her patients.
When told by other staff that a patient had requested something, she said: ‘They want to get f****** real’, the panel heard.
Mrs Turner, who qualified as a nurse in 1993, also allegedly branded Asian junior doctors ‘suicide bombers’ and ‘Osama’s mate’, in a reference to the late Al Qaeda leader.
The former ward sister, who worked in the A&E department between 2003 and 2009, also vowed to make one male nurse’s life ‘living hell’ leading him to take an overdose – which he survived.
Mrs White, who has been a registered nurse since 1992, bullied staff into lying about the length of times patients waited in A&E to meet the Government’s maximum four-hour target.
Astonishingly she is still working at the hospital and since leaving the A&E unit in 2009 had been promoted to one of the most senior management positions.
She is currently clinical site manager – in charge of allocating patients to beds – on a salary of up to £47,000, about £10,000 more than her previous nursing role.

Whistleblower: Helene Donnelly said Sister Turner - along with Sister White - would demand junior nurses falsify the times recorded for when patients were discharged

Whistleblowing nurse Helene Donnelly revealed Sister Turner – along  with Sister White – would demand junior nurses falsify the times recorded for when patients were discharged. She recalled: ‘They would frequently lie about discharge times, and pressurise members of staff to lie. They would speak nastily and swear at people who did not change the times, or would change the times themselves.
‘The drive for targets was obviously a huge thing at the time. We were told that jobs might be on the line if we didn’t do it.’
Stephen Redmond, who chaired the hearing at the Old Bailey, told the two nurses that they had failed to put patients and their care first.
‘Instead you made the achieving of statistical targets, by honest or dishonest means, your primary aim. This was not a one-off failing, rather it was at the heart of the way you worked over a sustained period.’
He said they had resorted to ‘sheer dishonesty’ by altering paperwork and said they had ‘coerced and frightened other, often junior, members of staff into doing the same. You shouted and swore at them if they did not comply when you should have been setting an example.’
Julie Bailey, who helped expose the appalling neglect at Mid Staffordshire following the death of her mother in 2007, said: ‘This is the start of accountability in the NHS. We’re all very pleased at the outcomes. But there is clear evidence these nurses should have been suspended long ago by the trust.’
She also said it was ‘frightening’ that despite being struck off, the pair could still work in hospitals as healthcare assistants.
The cases began in March but had been repeatedly adjourned and had only begun considering evidence against the pair this week.
Another five nurses from Mid Staffordshire are having their cases considered by the NMC including the former chief nurse, Jan Harry.
Maggie Oldham, chief executive at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, said: ‘Tracy White is still employed by the trust. We will need to take some time to consider the Nursing and Midwifery Council panel’s findings.’
The trust said Mrs Turner had stopped working for it in 2009.

SHE MADE THOSE IN PAIN WAIT

Among the most repellent examples of the behaviour of Tracy White was her lack of care and respect for an elderly woman in her final 24 hours.
She reprimanded the seriously ill patient by calling her a ‘naughty little monkey’ for not taking her laxatives, and refused to help lift her from a wheelchair to a bed, saying: ‘I’m not doing this. I’m not hurting my back.’
Whistleblowing nurse Helene Donnelly said the woman, who died the next day from a pulmonary oedema, or fluid on the lungs, had been given ‘a very uncared-for and undignified last 24 hours’. Another patient, who arrived at A&E suffering from bleeding after having an abortion, was refused immediate treatment by Sister White, who said: ‘She can wait, if you can do that to your baby.’
The whistleblower also claimed: ‘Sister White would deliberately make patients wait. Black patients were being made to wait.’
When junior nurse Mrs Donnelly was scathingly told off by another manager for faking a discharge time, she said she looked at the paperwork and recognised White’s handwriting.
But the senior nurse did not come forward to admit the forgery and was later promoted to her current role as clinical site manager.

FIGURE OF FEAR FOR HER STAFF

On the wards, Sharon Turner sent waves of fear through junior staff afraid to challenge her expletive-ridden diktats.
When one bullied male nurse took an overdose in despair, she said he ‘should have taken a few more and done the job properly’.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council was told Sister Turner had vowed to ‘make his life hell and get rid of him in six months’ and ‘drive him to drink’ so that ‘he would be out of here’.
When a colleague was taken to hospital with  a head injury, the mother of two is said to have told staff: ‘I don’t care if she lives or dies.’
Asian junior doctors had to put up with appalling racist abuse from the senior nurse.
She asked one, ‘What have you got in your rucksack doctor, is it a bomb?’ and referred to others as ‘him in the turban’ and ‘her with the yashmak [veil]’.

source

VIDEO STORY: Bullies in the Workplace

Source TodayTonight

Workplace bullying is a major issue in Australia with studies have shown it is costing the Australian economy $36 billion a year.

WATCH STORY here - VIDEO LINK

Now a Flight Centre franchise has landed at the centre of a fight over how its staff have been treated.
Three out of five staff from the same workplace resigned in just six months, and all are blaming one woman - their former boss.

The then manager of a travel agency in the Melbourne suburb of Frankston was Kelly Gallasch. She’s been accused of bullying behaviour by former staff members, including Richard Barnes.

Barnes says Gallasch told him to clean toilets, ordered him around and swore at him – “just to torment me until I'd lash out.”

Now Barnes is taking legal action against Flight Centre. He'll claim that he was a whistleblower on bullying problems at the travel giant, and under the Fair Work Act he was meant to be protected from victimisation.

In documents filed in the Federal Court Barnes claims his ex-boss made comments about him that would make tradies blush.

Another worker, Carol, has backed up Barnes’s claims. “I was constantly belittled in front of staff,” she said. Carol claims she received similar treatment to Barnes. “It was quite relentless,”

Amanda, another ex-worker who has come forward, says “I just didn’t want to get up and go to work.
“Basically she'd be increasing my workload so I’d feel more pressured and I’d quit my job,” Amanda added. And these employees are far from alone. Across the nation, bullying has reared its ugly head time and time again, and instances of workplace bullying are troubling.

It's estimated one in four people will experience bullying at some point in their work life, and seven per cent of suicides can be linked to workplace bullying according to a US report. Brodie Panlock is one of those victims; the nineteen-year-old killed herself after being bullied by three men at her workplace. Her tragic death led to Brodie's Law - a change to the Crimes Act that introduces ten year prison terms for bullying.

Psychologist Evelyn Field says bullying is “absolutely soul destroying. Being the victim of bullying changes your life forever.” Field believes bullying is often a cultural issue. “It’s really about management who are not stepping in and stopping it,” she said. As for the Flight Centre case, the travel giant says the matter was investigated at the time. They maintain they acted appropriately and deny the various allegations, which they say will be vigorously defended in court.

Flight Centre response statement

Our comment is similar to the comments we made when Maurice Blackburn issued its two previous press releases on this matter.

As this is now before the courts, neither Student Flights nor Flight Centre Limited can comment in detail.

The matter was investigated and action was taken against several people when the complaint was received last year.

Action was also taken against Mr Barnes, after concerns were raised about his behaviour in the workplace.

The company considers it acted appropriately and denies various allegations that have been made against it, including suggestions that Mr Barnes was forced out after he raised concerns.

It will vigorously defend the case.

Allegations of this nature are taken seriously and policies and procedures are in place to prevent and discipline such behaviour.

In addition, the company has a whistleblowers' facility that staff can use to report any alleged wrongdoing.

A Federal Government inquiry into workplace bullying is currently running in order to see if legislation needs to be changed. If you have experienced workplace bullying you can put in a submission at this website.




 

Australian Workplace - Canberra Hospital's Maternity Unit Bullying Cover Up?

Gallagher 'covering-up' maternity unit report

Pressure is mounting on the ACT Government to release the findings of an inquiry into bullying allegations at Canberra Hospital's maternity unit.

Earlier this year the ACT Government ordered two external reviews into the hospital's obstetrics and gynaecology units after allegations of workplace bullying were made.

The Government appointed a workplace relations expert to investigate the bullying claims.

The investigation was conducted under the Public Interest Disclosure Act - a law designed to protect whistleblowers by keeping information confidential.

Health Minister Katy Gallagher says confidentiality clauses in the legislation prevent her from reading the report or it being publicly released.

But the Opposition is pushing for the report's recommendations to be released in the Legislative Assembly.

Opposition health spokesman Jeremy Hanson says the information could be released without personal details being made public.

"I want to see the recommendations, I want to see the findings and unless we see that then we're going to have to consider further action," he said.

Mr Hanson says the Government is deliberately trying to cover-up the report.

"The minister has set this process up under the Public Interest Disclosure Act to avoid scrutiny," he said.

"We were very concerned about this when it occurred in February. We said then that what we needed was an open inquiry because in the end of the day the minister's going to make sure that this never sees the light of day, and it has come to fruition."

The ACT Greens says releasing details of the inquiry could jeopardise investigations in the future.

"What Mr Hanson is suggesting could potentially expose people, could threaten their confidentiality - either he doesn't understand the process or he's using it for his own political ends," said Greens MLA Amanda Bresnan.

Ms Bresnan says releasing any detail could lead to a loss of faith in the public interest disclosure process.

"With public interest disclosure, people have come forward on the understanding everything would be protected and while we might say, 'it's only a few details', Canberra's a small place, this is a small unit, and any information could actually potentially identify the people involved," she said.

"It would really seriously undermine the whole public interest disclosure process."

Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says the inquiry will be followed up.

"I can give an absolute assurance that any of the findings will be taken absolutely seriously and if there were recommendations or implications they will be taken seriously and there's no reason for people not to believe that," he said.

The Health Services Union says there is a broader problem with the way bullying claims are handled.

"It just seems to be endemic and also the process is so lacking in transparency and information," said union spokeswoman Bev Turello.

ACT Health says it has written to the people involved in the inquiry.

But the Ms Turello says in the union's experience, staff are often kept in the dark.

"They need to know if action has been taken, if appropriate action has been taken, if they're going to be safe in their workplaces."

Royal College of Obstetricians ACT chair Dr Andrew Foote says it has been nearly 12 months since the bullying allegations were made public and nothing has changed.

"I've spoken to a number of people at the hospital and there is a real dread, and fear and sense of helplessness," he said.

"It sends the message, what's the point in complaining about bullying because nothing will get done."

source

JETSTAR WHISTLEBLOWER SACKED - Pilots union issue threat after Jetstar whistleblower Joe Eakins sacked

Jetstar pilot Joe Eakins has been fired by the airline

UPDATE 4:17pm: JETSTAR will be challeged over claims its fired a whistleblower who criticised the budget airline for "diminishing safety standards", the pilot's union says.

First Officer Joe Eakins, 31, criticised cost-cutting at Jetstar and the plan to hire air crews based in Singapore "on wages well below their Australian-based colleagues" and what effect this would have on passenger safety.

Eakins has been sacked for breaching company policy of speaking publicly about the airline in an article published last month.

"I am shocked and saddened they have chosen to react this way," he told the Herald Sun.

"I've been a good employee and I'm shocked any company would sack an employee for raising their concerns about safety and industrial issues, especially in the airline industry."

His said his treatment by the company did not "bode well for any other pilot with safety concerns".

"I believe the concerns I voiced were reasonable and legitimate," Mr Eakins said on Friday.

"I was acting within my rights as a union representative who advanced views of the association.

"I think Jetstar's actions were unwarranted and unjustified."

The airline disagrees, saying his claims are are “untrue”.

"The employee chose to publicly make incorrect accusations on multiple and separate occasions against Jetstar with the effect of misleading the travelling public," the airline said in a statement.

The Australian and International Pilots Association had said earlier this week it was prepared to take the case to the High Court and did not ruled out pursuing industrial action.

Association president Barry Jackson described Eakins as a whistleblower and hero to the Australian aviation community.

"Joe's bravery in blowing the whistle on some of these practices has been rewarded by an unfair dismissal," Captain Jackson said.

"The association will be taking Joe's case to Fair Work Australia, claiming unfair dismissal and making an adverse-action claim under untested Fair Work laws.

"The association is calling on all federal parliamentarians to carefully consider the implications of this shocking case."

Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway confirmed the first officer had been sacked "after a standard and lengthy process" for bringing the company into disrepute and said there were many "internal measures" for raising safety concerns.

"The Australian aviation sector is at a crossroads. Not only are the dreams of the youngsters who look skyward at risk, but the institutions that created our reputation for safety through well trained experienced pilots is under threat, which is bad news for all Australians."

source

Whistleblowing on Bullying - Time for Management to take ownership and deal with the Bullies

There is a conspiracy of silence when it comes to workplace bullying. In the many thousands of words recently written about bullying at work in the local press the conspiracy has been maintained.

A conspiracy of silence occurs when everyone knows that bad behaviour is occurring but there is a tacit decision not to talk about it and certainly not to do anything. It was first used to describe incest in families and, more recently, other forms of abuse. People don’t do anything because they don’t want to rock the boat, to avoid conflict, and because it is just too hard. Sadly, by not speaking up or doing anything the observers validate the perpetrator and invalidate the victim.

As I have often seen in clinical practice, the effect of these conspiracies on the victims is monstrous. The victim feels as if he or she is somehow at fault, they are confused, and feel alone and unsupported. Most importantly they come to feel powerless and it is this that results in anxiety and depression, the most common effects of being bullied.

In all that is written about bullying at work there are two major conspiracies of silence that result in enormous pain and suffering for victims. It also seems that workmates who see the bullying can also be badly affected resulting in significant symptoms on their part too.

The first gaping silence is that senior managers in organisations prefer not to do anything about bullies. This conspiracy of silence occurs despite the fact that bullying is against the law and CEOs and boards of directors are in fact culpable by not acting. It is interesting to watch an organisation move a victim of bullying to another branch or even another job, and leave the bully in place: even after admitting openly that the bullying has occurred. Sometimes, it is easier to call a case of bullying a personality conflict and call in a mediator. The damage these behaviours do to the victim is enormous.

It’s also common to blame the victim. This is easy because the bullied worker has repeatedly made complaints, as instructed by the legislation and the bullying literature that is lying on the coffee table in the CEO’s waiting area. The victim, who has become increasingly distressed over time, can be simplistically labelled as unstable or over-sensitive: a trouble maker. Let’s not forget too that bullies often pick on already vulnerable people who might have a reputation already for being over-sensitive.

There have been some notorious bullies in organisations in and around Lismore that have been allowed to get away with bullying behaviour time and time again: I have seem many of their victims at the clinic. Many of these bullies get promoted. There are also large numbers of senior managers that know that their staff are being bullied but do nothing. Under the legislation they are just as culpable as the bully and their organisation can be fined many thousands of dollars. But they still engage in the conspiracy and more often than not put the fox in charge of the chook shed.

The preferred personality profile of a successful manager (or one on the way up) appears to be someone who is aggressive, dominant, single-minded, achievement-oriented, and task-focused. Throw in a little pinch of narcissism, low empathy for others and an unsatisfied need for power and this is a nasty recipe for bullying behaviour. These are not easy people to deal with which makes it so much easier to turn a blind eye. Bullies often appear so good at their job and they create the right relationships with the right people to protect themselves.

And it happens every day in organisations in which we all work. In a recent case a colleague of mine was told by the human resource manager of her organisation that it would be better to let a case of bullying drop because it was against a very senior manager. The reason being that the consequences would not be worth it in the end.

The other conspiracy involves an unholy alliance between the organisation and the insurance company. Despite the pretty advertisements, insurance companies want to avoid liability. To do this they will find any excuse to blame the victim rather than make the workplace deal with the problem. Everyone’s a winner: the insurance company doesn’t have to pay out and the organisation’s premiums are protected.

The main way this is done is to find a pre-existing condition in the victim such as a history of previous abuse, anxiety, depression, previous bullying or any other negative behaviour. This is then used as a means of blaming the victim. This is easy to do by running an unbalanced investigation and being highly selective with ‘the evidence’. For someone who has genuinely been bullied at work this outcome is extremely damaging.

It is time for the conspiracies of silence to be broken. Those with the power to act need to make the hard decision and deal with the perpetrator rather than leaving it up to the victim, who is already disempowered.

Dr Stewart Hase is an Adjunct Fellow with Southern Cross University and a consultant psychologist.

source

RESEARCH - Review of Literature on Whistleblowing

1.2.4 Review of Literature on Whistleblowing

2.0 Review of Literature on Whistleblowing

There are two central problems in designing and implementing policies and programs to promote whistleblowing against corruption. The first is how to encourage the "silent majority" of public officials and employees to report a wrongdoing despite the risks. The second is how make whistleblowing effective in creating desired changes in individual, organizational and societal practices. This chapter reviews the theories and practices in whistleblowing to generate insights on these two central problems in whistleblowing.

2.1. Encouraging whistleblowing

Whistleblowing among employees appears to be a rare behavior especially in societies and organizations that do not encourage it as a policy. Impediments to whistleblowing against certain wrongdoings include threats to professional careers and physical security, social ostracism, absence or ineffective legal framework, the lack of evidence, absence of clear procedures on whistleblowing, and the perception that nothing will be done about a reported wrongdoing. Identifying and understanding the factors that deter whistleblowing among individuals offer valuable insights on how to design appropriate and effective whistleblowing policies.

2.1.1 Benefits of whistleblowing

Some authors contend that whistleblowing is ineffective in creating change. For example, Near and Miceli (1995:703) assert that whistleblowing, sometimes, benefits no one and harms many, including the whistleblower who may suffer retaliation. They warn that whistleblowing should not be resorted unless the desired outcomes will be realized.

For all the controversy that it generates, whistleblowing actually produces benefits for organizations and societies. These benefits, however, are mostly left unappreciated in the heat of controversies surrounding many whistleblowing incidents.

Nonetheless, several studies have documented the benefits of whistleblowing. For example, in a survey of federal employees in the United States, Jos, Tompkins, and Hays (1989) reported that whistleblowing resulted in policy, procedural, and personnel changes (Table 11). The authors also noted that whistleblowing led to internal and congressional investigations that ultimately resulted in the criminal indictment and conviction of perpetrators of wrongdoing.

Table 11

Reported effects of whistleblower actions on the organization

	Percentage of survey respondents
Total reporting changes within organization	62
Managerial changes	37
People transferred/replaced/not reappointed	37
Personnel practices	24
Departmental reorganization	17
Safety improvements made	11
Policies changed	32
External Investigations	51
Outside Agency (FBI, EPA, NRC)	31
Congressional hearings/investigations held	28
Criminal investigation	22
Indictments resulted	11
Convictions obtained	12

Source: Jos, Philip. H., Mark Tompkins, and Steven Hays.1989. "In Praise of Difficult People: A Portrait

Of the Committed Whistleblower". Public Administration Review, Nov/Dec.1989; 49, 6; Academic Research

Library, p. 555

Johnson and Kraft (1990) provide an assessment framework for looking at the concrete benefits of whistleblowing (Table 12). Exploring several case studies on whistleblowing incidents in the United States, they concluded that whistleblowing led to : 1) certain changes in the government's policy agenda, 2) some substantive changes in public policies, and 3) changes in bureaucratic and organizational procedures.¹ These accounts validate the benefits of whistleblowing as an instrument to bring about certain changes in organizations and the society.

Table 12

Measures for assessing whistleblowing policy impact

Dimensions	Indicators
Changes in policy agenda	How did the policy agenda change in terms policymaker's attention to the problem? How seriously did the policymakers consider the various policy alternatives to address the problem?
Changes in bureaucratic procedures	What impact did whistleblowing have on the conditions of the agency? Were there changes in organizational resources, personnel procedures, rules and regulations and the way they were implemented?
Changes in the substance of public policy	How was substantive public policy affected, as indicated, for example by public pronouncements or by legislative efforts to formulate or adopt new policies or to clarify existing policy?

Source: Adapted from Johnson and Kraft (1990)

The Criminal Justice Commission of Queensland (Australia) enumerates some of the most important societal benefits of whistleblowing against corruption and other forms of wrongdoing. ² It asserts that whistleblowing protects and promotes the public good by

• 
  
  
  stopping wrongdoings;
• 
  
  
  stopping other people from being disadvantaged by the wrongdoing;
• 
  
  
  preventing danger to the health and safety of the people;
• 
  
  
  preventing serious damage to the environment;
• 
  
  
  creating an opportunity to put better work procedures into practice which can prevent wrongdoing in the future;
• 
  
  
  bringing to justice the people responsible for wrongdoing.

The Criminal Justice Commission also provides the following organizational benefits of whistleblowing:

• 
  
  
  early identification of conduct needing correction;
• 
  
  
  early identification of weak or flawed systems which make the organization vulnerable to loss, criticism, or legal action;
• 
  
  
  avoidance of substantial financial losses;
• 
  
  
  maintenance of a positive corporate reputation;
• 
  
  
  elimination of a risk to the health and safety of the employees

or the community;

• 
  
  
  maintenance of a positive record on environmental protection;
• 
  
  
  improved focus on accountability of managers and staff.

2.1.2 Personal costs and other key factors affecting whistleblowing

Some scholars have attempted to provide a framework to analyze the various factors that affect or influence an individual's whistleblowing decision or behavior. Schultz et al. (1993), for example, examined the propensity of corporate managers and professionals to report questionable acts in both the domestic and international settings.³ Figure 4 shows their whistleblowing model, which proposes that the chances of actual whistleblowing decline as the perceived personal cost of whistleblowing goes higher, and increase with the perceived seriousness of an issue and the attribution of personal responsibility to report a wrongdoing.

The factors affecting whistleblowing intentions enumerated in the study of Schultz et al. are closely related to the significant whistleblowing variables identified in a recent study by Ayers and Kaplan (2005). Using an experimental approach, Ayers and Kaplan identified four considerations that affect whistleblowing behavior. These factors are 1) perceptions about the seriousness of wrongdoing; 2) personal costs; 3) personal responsibility related to a wrongdoing; and 4) moral equity judgments.⁴

Figure 4

A Model of Reporting Questionable Acts

(Adapted from Schultz et al. 1993)

Seriousness of a wrongdoing and whistleblowing. Whistleblowing will likely occur when people are more aware and actually feel that a wrongdoing has become more harmful to the organization. Perceptions on the seriousness of a wrongdoing are subjective, however. They are influenced by several factors.

One of these is the prevailing organizational or societal value. When the dominant organizational or societal value accepts or tolerates wrongdoing, then whistleblowing will not likely occur. In a survey on corporate wrongdoings conducted by the Asian Institute of Management-Ramon V. del Rosario Center for Corporate Responsibility (2004), for example, the findings reveal that majority of the senior executives (57 percent) believe that "keeping quiet" on a wrongdoing is not "always wrong".⁵ In one survey of the Social Weather Stations also, bribery is perceived by some businessmen as a standard business practice.

Although a potential whistleblower may perceive that a wrongdoing is serious enough, whistleblowing will not automatically occur especially in the absence of a clear and convincing evidence of the wrongdoing. When the whistleblower holds strong evidence about a corrupt practice, it strengthens his or her belief that the wrongdoing is serious enough and need to be reported.

Perceptions of the seriousness of a wrongdoing may also be influenced by clear policy standards on what constitutes wrongdoing. Laws defining corrupt acts, for example, may provide cues to the potential whistleblower in deciding whether observed wrongdoing is serious or not.

Personal responsibility and whistleblowing. When people are aware and feel that it is their responsibility to report a wrongdoing, they are more likely to blow the whistle. The attribution of personal responsibility to report is an important explanation why people have a higher propensity to report a questionable act compared to others. In a study of internal auditors in the United States and Canada, Miceli, Near and Schwenk (1991) reported that "subjects were less likely to report incidents when they did not feel morally or by role prescriptions to do so". This finding is at odds with the ideal concept of whistleblowing as a voluntary act on the part of the individual. Nonetheless, for the purpose of encouraging whistleblowing as a policy in order to fight corruption, it may be worthwhile to explore the pros and cons of making whistleblowing as a legal obligation of public officials and employees. In addition, it may also be desirable to enhance existing protections given to role-prescribed whistleblowers such as Internal Auditors and Compliance Officers.

Personal costs and whistleblowing. Whistleblowing rarely occurs as the personal costs of reporting rise. When people perceive that the personal costs have become very high, then they will not blow the whistle. This insight does not mean, however, that when personal costs exceed expected benefits, then no whistleblowing will take place. It only means that there are thresholds of tolerable personal costs wherein people are still courageous or willing enough to blow the whistle. Beyond this threshold of tolerance, whistleblowing will be very rare, if it will happen at all.

The fear of retaliation is the major impediment to whistleblowing. This is one of the main reasons why many people prefer to stay silent than blow the whistle against observed wrongdoings. Table 13 shows the most serious forms of retaliation experienced by whistleblowers. Among these are loss of job, reduction of salary or job responsibilities and harassment in the workplace. Ostracism in the workplace is also one of the most burdensome consequences of whistleblowing. Overall, these consequences of whistleblowing deprive the individual of much-needed social support and personal comfort. Expectations of these difficulties will discourage individuals from blowing the whistle.

Table 13

Most serious forms of retaliation experienced by whistleblowers

Form of retaliation	Percentage of survey respondents
Loss of job	62
Job responsibilities or salary reduced	11
Harassment, transfer	18
Job responsibilities changed	2
Work more closely monitored	1
No retaliation	5

Source: Jos, Philip. H., Mark Tompkins, and Steven Hays.1989.

The absence of effective legal protection for whistleblowers increases the personal costs of and deters whistleblowing. In a survey of New South Wales (Australia) public sector employees, it was reported that 76 percent of the respondents said they would either be unlikely to, or definitely would not, report corruption in the absence of legal protection. ⁶ About 67 percent of respondents agreed that "legal protection makes it easier for them to consider reporting corruption".

Perceptions of the personal costs and of whistleblowing may differ among cultures. The differences may be explained by the dominant value judgments with regard to existing practices. One culture may accept a certain business practice, for example, but in another context, such practice would be viewed as questionable (Schultz et al. 1993:80). The differences in value judgments with regard to certain practices may also affect employee's assessment on whether to report a wrongdoing.

Organizational culture is another factor affecting people's propensity to blow the whistle against observed and perceived forms of wrongdoing. As "collective programs", organizational culture contains values that direct not only people's awareness and attitudes of "good" and "evil" acts, but also contribute to the "tolerance of principled dissent in the organization". ⁷

People will not also be willing to blow the whistle when authorities, whether internal or external to the organization, habitually fail to act on reported wrongdoings. The perception that nothing will be done about a reported wrongdoing may contribute to the potential whistleblower's fear of retaliation from powerful wrongdoers.

2.1.3 Frameworks on whistleblowing effectiveness

Policies designed to encourage whistleblowing must consider the factors that facilitate or constrain it. In addition, they must address the issues that impede the effectiveness of whistleblowing in correcting or terminating reported questionable practices. Understanding the whistleblowing process provides valuable guidance in designing such policy.

The whistleblowing process has been explored in considerable depth by some scholars. Near, Dworkin, and Miceli (1993) employed the concepts of justice and power to make some sense of the whistleblowing process.

Justice framework. This framework explains the reactions of various parties to whistleblowing. It uses the concepts of procedural and distributive justice to understand the reactions of parties to whistleblowing incidents. The concept of "procedural justice" guides stakeholders' perceptions of "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction" with the system of whistleblowing (Near, Dworkin, and Miceli 1993). "Distributive justice" concerns determine feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the outcomes of whistleblowing. The justice framework offers the following insights on whistleblowing effectiveness.

Procedural justice

• 
  
  
  The organization's fairness in administering the procedures for dealing with whistleblowing incidents determines the whistleblower satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the whistleblowing system.

• 
  
  
  Members of the organization will perceive that there is procedural justice when the whistleblower follows "fair" reporting procedures, probably reporting the wrongdoing through internal channels than making it public knowledge by reporting it to some outside agency or the media.⁸

Distributive justice

• 
  
  
  The whistleblower will be satisfied with the outcome of his/her whistleblowing when the organization corrected or terminated a wrongdoing and did not retaliate against him or her. ⁹

• 
  
  
  The members of the organization will be satisfied with the whistleblowing when they feel that the organization was not harmed by the wrongdoing and the whistleblowing.

Power-relations framework. This framework views whistleblowing as an "influence process" that affects the "balance of power within an organization".¹⁰ According to this framework, a whistleblower tries to convince the members of the organization or its dominant coalition to change an existing practice because it constitutes a wrongdoing. The organization can either terminate or continue with the challenged practice, depending on how powerful or influential the whistleblower is in the organization. Lacking power, the whistleblower may be punished for his or her "activism" that may rock the stability and challenges the power structures in the organization. Thus, for Near and Miceli (1995:686), the whistleblower's effectiveness in producing the desired changes depends partly on the power he or she possesses in the organization.

Whistleblowing involves the dynamic interaction of several parties. Near and Miceli (1995) offers the following simple framework to understand this process of interaction.

Figure 5

A model of the whistleblowing process

As Figure 5 shows, whistleblowing effectiveness will be determined by the combined outcomes of the six (6) interactions:

• 
  
  
  between the whistleblower and the complaint recipient;
• 
  
  
  between the whistleblower and the organization;
• 
  
  
  between the whistleblower and the wrongdoer;
• 
  
  
  between the complaint recipient and the wrongdoer;
• 
  
  
  between the complaint recipient and the organization;
• 
  
  
  between the wrongdoer and the organization.

In turn, the outcomes of these interactions will depend on the characteristics of the five (5) primary actors in whistleblowing (Near and Miceli 1995:681).

• 
  
  
  Characteristics of the whistleblower;
• 
  
  
  Characteristics of the complaint-recipient;
• 
  
  
  Characteristics of the wrongdoer;
• 
  
  
  Characteristics of the wrongdoing;
• 
  
  
  Characteristics of the organization.

The influence of individual and situational variables on the outcome of whistleblowing is shown in Figures 6 and 7. Essentially, the credibility and power of whistleblowers, complaint recipients, or wrongdoers affect the overall outcome of a whistleblowing incident. The organizational and societal support to whistleblowers or wrongdoer is also crucial in determining the outcomes of whistleblowing. Lastly, the willingness of the organization to change a questionable practice determines whistleblowing effectiveness.

Figure 6

Individual variables that affect the outcome of whistleblowing

(Source: Near and Miceli.1995. Effective Whistleblowing, p. 682)

Figure 7

Situational variables that affect the outcome of whistleblowing

(Source: Near and Miceli. 1995. Effective Whistleblowing, p. 683)

In addition to individual variables, situational variables also influence the outcome of the whistleblowing process. Two variables are crucial: the characteristics of the wrongdoing and the characteristics of the organization. The level of organizational dependence on a wrongdoing, the availability of convincing evidence of wrongdoing, and the legal basis for the whistleblowing may influence its outcomes.

Other important factors affecting whistleblowing effectiveness are 1)organizational perceptions on the "appropriateness of whistleblowing", 2) the existence of a climate favorable to whistleblowing, 3) the existence of less bureaucratic organizational structures, 4) organization's power relative to its external environment, and 5) the whistleblower's choice of whistleblowing channels (internal or external).

2.1.4 Theoretical insights on whistleblowing policy design

The main challenges in whistleblowing policy design are 1) encouraging individuals with information about a wrongdoing to blow the whistle, and 2) making whistleblowing effective as an instrument of change. The literature contains rich insights on these core problems in whistleblowing. Among these are the following:

• 
  
  
  Achieve overall system satisfaction.
• 
  
  
  Improve legal standards on protected whistleblowing.
• 
  
  
  Reduce the costs of whistleblowing.
• 
  
  
  Create effective societal and organizational structures.
• 
  
  
  Promote role-prescribed whistleblowing.
• 
  
  
  Enhance whistleblowing skills.

Achieve system satisfaction. Many policy initiatives to encourage whistleblowing generally fail because they focus only on satisfying the concerns of whistleblowers; the concerns of the other parties such as managers and fellow employees are largely neglected (Near, Dworkin and Miceli 1993:396). Currently, the dominant approach to encourage whistleblowing is to protect whistleblowers and establish procedures that will facilitate whistleblowing. Such interventions are not enough to increase the supply of whistleblowers to counter the massive corruption in some societies and organizations.

The key to encourage whistleblowing, according to Near and Miceli (1995), is to achieve overall system satisfaction, which can create a much safer environment for whistleblowers. To achieve system satisfaction, policies must satisfy the procedural and distributive justice concerns of both the whistleblowers and the other parties to whistleblowing incidents.

• 
  
  
  Satisfying the concerns of whistleblowers. Policies must ensure that organizations establish and provide fair procedures for whistleblowing by employees. In addition, the policies must address the distributive concerns of whistleblowers, i.e., making sure that reported wrongdoings are acted upon. The policies must ensure that whistleblowers will not suffer from retaliation as a result of reporting wrongdoings that pose serious harm to the public or organizational interests.

For whistleblowers, satisfaction and continuing confidence on the whistleblowing system will come from perception that society and organizations have fair and user-friendly procedures for reporting and responding to reported wrongdoing. The whistleblowing system must ensure that whistleblowers will be amply protected, if not rewarded, when they blow the whistle against serious forms of wrongdoing.

• 
  
  
  Satisfy the procedural and distributive concerns of the other parties to whistleblowing. The policies must provide certain incentives for whistleblowers to follow the prescribed and legitimate procedures for whistleblowing, probably giving the organization the first opportunity to correct the wrongdoing. Policies to encourage whistleblowing must raise awareness and appreciation of the individual, organizational, and societal benefits of whistleblowing. Addressing the concerns of stakeholders will help produce a favorable response to whistleblowing (ibid., p. 397). Policies must mandate the adoption and implementation of programs to promote the value of whistleblowing to all stakeholders.

Improve legal and organizational standards on protected whistleblowing. Whistleblowing will be more effective when whistleblowers report activities that are clearly illegal compared to those that are merely unethical or immoral (Near and Miceli 1995:698). In one survey, majority of respondents expressed higher preference for whistleblowing against illegal-as compared to merely unethical--activities (Callahan, Sangrey and Collins 1995:942). In the same study, 75 percent of respondents believed that an employee who is terminated for informing the news media of an employer's illegal activity should be protected. In comparison, only 61 percent of respondents asked for whistleblower's protection for those who report unethical practices.

Laws that define the forms of wrongdoing that are illegal also empower complaint-recipients to act on whistleblower's disclosure.

Whistleblowing will be more effective in organizations with ethical climates that discourage wrongdoing, encourage the reporting of wrongdoing, and discourage retaliation against whistleblowers (Near and Miceli 1995:701). The ethical climates in organizations influence perceptions of the appropriateness of whistleblowing (Near and Miceli 1995:700). In general, if the organizational climate discourages wrongdoing, then employees will be more encouraged to report a wrongdoing.

When stakeholders perceive that the whistleblower's action is appropriate, then whistleblowing will be more effective in producing the desired changes. When coworkers, management, and the complaint recipient believe that organizational norms allow or even encourage the reporting of a wrongdoing, then whistleblowing will be more effective. But, if stakeholders perceive that the whistleblower's actions have breached the bounds of appropriateness, whistleblowing will be resisted regardless of its benefits. Policy interventions, therefore, must encourage organizations to adopt organizational cultures and practices that make whistleblowing legitimate, appropriate, and socially rewarding.

Reduce the costs of whistleblowing. Whistleblowing has personal costs that will make whistleblowing a rare behavior among individuals. Mitigating these costs will increase the individual's use of whistleblowing as an instrument for correcting or terminating wrongdoings. A holistic policy on whistleblower's protection is an essential step in reducing the costs of, and encouraging, whistleblowing. Policies must also establish programs to promote the value of whistleblowers for organizations and the society.

• 
  
  
  Counter the negative perception that whistleblowers are "harmdoers". Some people in powerful positions view a whistleblower as "harmdoer" when he or she reports directly to an external public authority or to the media, about alleged wrongdoing. According to the view, a whistleblower makes the first "public attack" against an organization although he or she may be making a legitimate protest against a questionable organizational practice that poses serious harm to the public or even organizational interest.¹¹ This negative view serves as justifications for retaliating against whistleblowers. To counter this view, whistleblowing policies must mandate the adoption of programs to promote the value of whistleblowers in uncovering anomalies that would do more serious damage to the public or even organizational interest if left not corrected. They must also provide incentives (e.g. state protection) for whistleblowers to use official channels for airing allegations of wrongdoings.

• 
  
  
  Prevent retaliation. Policies and programs to encourage whistleblowing must be able to prevent harassment, reprisals and other forms of retaliatory actions, which are major impediments to whistleblowing. Society can reduce the personal costs of whistleblowing by establishing the rights of, and providing legal remedies for retaliatory actions against, whistleblowers.

• 
  
  
  Cultivate social support. Policies and programs must help cultivate societal and organizational support, which are far more effective strategies in preventing retaliation against whistleblowers. They can enhance such support by increasing awareness of the benefits of whistleblowing and preventing damage to the reputations of individuals and organization from unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoings.

• 
  
  
  Increase personal benefits. Organizations and society must increase the personal benefits of whistleblowing. The level of expected benefits must be convincing enough to help the whistleblower decide in favor of whistleblowing despite the presence of risks. Attractive incentives, in whatever form, should be provided to encourage whistleblowing.

Create powerful societal or organizational structures for whistleblowing. The work of Near and Miceli (1998) on effective whistleblowing underscores the value of powerful complaint-recipients in making whistleblowing effective.

Like whistleblowers, complaint-recipients also make some calculations on whether to act on the reported wrongdoings. They must determine 1) whether wrongdoing has really occurred, 2) whether they are responsible for acting, and 3) whether they have the power to change the wrongdoing.

When they are powerful enough, complaint-recipients may use "efficacious actions" to address a reported wrongdoing, but only when they support the whistleblower (Near and Miceli 1995:694). A powerful complaint-recipient, who is supportive of the whistleblower, enhances the whistleblower's credibility (ibid., p. 693), thus increasing overall whistleblowing effectiveness.

Near and Miceli (1995:702) also hypothesize that whistleblowing is more effective in organizations with more formal (written) mechanisms of encouraging whistleblowing.

• 
  
  
  Allow graduated levels of anonymous or confidential whistleblowing. Anonymity may either enhance or decrease whistleblowing effectiveness (Near and Miceli 1995:692). On the one hand, it can increase whistleblowing effectiveness by reducing the likelihood of retaliation against whistleblowers and by preventing attacks against the motivations of whistleblowers who have questionable characters but, nonetheless, provided valuable information about wrongdoings. On the other hand, anonymity reduces the credibility of the complaint itself; it raises suspicions about the value of the disclosed information and the motive for whistleblowing. Anonymity makes it also difficult for complaint-recipients to seek additional evidence to validate the whistleblower's allegations of wrongdoing, reducing whistleblowing effectiveness in the process.

The proper policy approach towards anonymity and confidentiality may depend on the existing organizational climates. When the organizational climate is unsafe for people who challenge authority structures for perpetuating questionable practices, then anonymous whistleblowing can be a safer alternative to encourage individuals to disclose information about observed wrongdoing. Confidential whistleblowing to authorized complaint-recipients, inside or outside organizations, can also be encouraged especially when organizational norms that discourage wrongdoing already exist.

Whistleblowers who have the courage to reveal themselves to complaint-recipients may increase perceptions about their credibility and facilitate the complaint-recipient's investigation.

• 
  
  
  Allow several channels for whistleblowing. Internal whistleblowing will be less effective especially when the organization exhibits great dependence on a questionable practice. When the organization is highly dependent on the wrongdoing for its survival, top management may be unable to terminate a protested wrongdoing. In such cases, external whistleblowing will be more effective in correcting or terminating a wrongdoing (Near and Miceli 1995:695-697).

Using a justice framework on whistleblowing, organizations must develop consensus not only on internal whistleblowing procedures, but also on the criteria and procedures that would make it legitimate for employees to use external whistleblowing channels.

Promote role-prescribed whistleblowing. The likelihood of whistleblowing depends on the attribution of personal responsibility to report wrongdoings (Schultz et al. 1993). Thus, to encourage whistleblowing, society and organizations need to mandate it as part of an employee's responsibilities.

Some existing studies also hypothesize that role-prescribed whistleblowers are more effective in correcting or terminating wrongdoings because their whistleblowing is seen as more legitimate (i.e., they are just doing their job). Role-prescribed whistleblowers, such as Internal Auditors, are also less prone to retaliation because they can offer more socially acceptable and legitimate reasons for whistleblowing; they can use "ideological accounts" to convince stakeholders that their whistleblowing only complies with societal dictates to report organizational wrongdoings although organizations themselves may suffer certain consequences (Near, Miceli and Dworkin 1993:405).

Whistleblowing can also be prescribed as a duty of leaders and managers of organizations, to make it more effective. Using a theory of resource dependence, Near and Miceli (195:687) hypothesize that whistleblowers who occupy leadership positions or have expertise are likely to be more effective in stopping questionable practices. This is because of the organization's dependence on their resources (leadership, expertise, etc.) In addition, using the theory of value congruence, Near and Miceli assert that whistleblowers who have the same values as the organization's management will be more influential in stopping organizational wrongdoings. The effectiveness of role-prescribed whistleblowers can also be explained by their legitimate organizational power to reward or coerce (Near and Miceli 1998).

Policy initiatives to prescribe whistleblowing as an employee's duty may have the same effect as legitimizing role-prescribed whistleblowing status (Near and Miceli 1998).

Improve whistleblowing skills. Whistleblowing will be more effective when the evidence of a wrongdoing is convincing. Written documentation and other clear evidence of a wrongdoing will make whistleblowing more effective because they enhance the credibility of the whistleblower and his/her disclosure. Strong evidence will also make it easier for the whistleblower to convince the complaint recipient to act on the reported wrongdoing (Near and Miceli 1995:697. These insights suggest that whistleblowing policies must mandate the adoption and implementation of programs designed to increase the knowledge and skills of whistleblowers in using the official channels and procedures for whistleblowing.

1 Johnson, Robert Ann and Michael Kraft.1990. "Bureaucratic Whistleblowing and Policy Change". The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Dec.),pp. 849-874

2 Criminal Justice Commission.1999. Exposing Corruption: A CJC Guide to Whistleblowing in Queensland. Available: http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/30223001131406950275.pdf

3 Schultz, Joseph Jr., Douglas Johnson, Deigan Morrisand Sverre Dyrnes.1993. "An Investigation of the Reporting of Questionable Acts in an International Setting." Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.31, Studies on International Accounting, pp. 75-103. The authors used an experimental study in which subjects were asked to judge the likelihood of reporting a questionable act and to assess the personal responsibility to report. Each subject completed six case studies. The subjects consisted of 145 managers and professional staff from public companies in Norway and the United States and from wholly owned US subsidiaries in France.

4 Ayers, Susan and Steven Kaplan.(2005)."Wrongdoing by Consultants: An Examination of Employees Reporting Intentions." Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 57, pp. 121-137

Source : www.aim-hills.ph

5 Opinion Survey of Senior Executives conducted by the RVR Center for Corporate Responsibility, Asian Institute of Management

6 Whistle-blowing: An effective anti-corruption tool? Available: http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/CRIMEINDEX/99VOL3NO3/ WhistleBlowing.html. Published at Nedbank ISS Crime Index, Volume 3, 1999, Number 3, May-June.

7 Hofstede 1985 as cited in Schultz et al. (1991:79-80)

8 Near, Dworkin, Miceli 1993:395-396)

9 ibid, p. 395

10 Near, Dworkin & Miceli, 1993:394

11 Near, Dworkin and Miceli (1993:405)