Far too often is bullying a prevalent concern in the workplace, which places a strain on workplace culture and leaves employees stressed. In the wake of a Cabinet Office investigation into the bullying behaviour of Home Secretary Priti Patel that is set to be concluded this week, the former Home Office permanent secretary Sir Philip Rutnam has recently lodged an employment tribunal claim under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) to argue that he was constructively dismissed for whistleblowing about the Home Secretary’s alleged behaviour.  This case underlines the negative impact a bullying culture can have on an organisation and raises important questions about when a bullying issue crosses over from HR issue into whistleblowing.

Is bullying protected by the whistleblowing protection

The tribunal case will be closely watched by legal commentators as it is expected that Rutnam’s case will consider whether concerns in relation to bullying are covered by the PIDA and the “public interest test”. While it is often assumed that there is a rigid division between whistleblowing concerns and individual HR issues such as bullying, the reality is there is significant overlap between the two. An overly rigid approach to dealing with cases by employers may mean that concerns that should be handled as whistleblowing are incorrectly dealt with as grievances. In short if an employer deals with bullying as purely a complaint between two members of staff they may miss a situation where a damaging culture of bullying exists.

On Protect’s Advice Line 5% of our cases from last year ,137 from a sample of size of 2796, were bullying whistleblowing cases where the concern was based on a culture of bullying, rather than just an isolated incident. This means it may not be effective for employers to just investigate through a grievance or HR mechanisms as it’s a matter that concerns a whole team, department or even a whole workforce, rather than just an individual’s contractual rights.

The role of regulators in a bullying culture

Some regulators such as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have taken an interest in cultural issues like bullying as a way to gauge the overall whistleblowing culture of a bank or insurance firm. In its “Dear CEO Letter” the FCA stated that “that poor culture in organisations…can lead directly to harm to consumers, market participants, employees and markets”. This approach has been adopted by other regulators of professionals where culture and bullying conduct by individuals could impact consumers or an individual’s fitness and practice. Other regulators should be taking a similar approach to the FCA by viewing culture as being integral to internal whistleblowing arrangements in the organisations they regulate and introducing rules or standard for such arrangements. This is Principles 5 of the Protect’s guide for regulators, the Principles for Recommended Practice: Better Regulators”.

Other indicators that make bullying a whistleblowing issue

Other indicators for when concerns about bullying may engage the public interest is if it concerns a large number of employees and/or if it affects their rights in a significant way, such as high numbers of work-related stress. Additionally, a culture of bullying may have a wider impact on the public and to the services that the organisation provides. For instance, in a health setting this may affect the quality of care that is being provided by a team which in turn creates patient safety concerns, which would engage the public interest and should warrant a separate investigation.

For the well-being of staff and for the delivery of services, it is important for employers to understand when cultural issues in the workplace become a whistleblowing matter, and that they can identify this from complaints and grievances made by employees and act appropriately.

What Should Employers should be looking out for?

  • Spot trends from whistleblowing concerns and grievances – This will help you identify, investigate and resolve concerns in an effective way and help you make organisation-wide changes to resolve systemic issues.
  • Consider the impact of bullying issues on service delivery – The impact of workplace bullying may be felt by your organisation, its customers or the general public. Make sure that you ascertain the impact of bullying issues so that you are able to better investigate and resolve them.
  • Create and maintain a healthy speak-up culture – Make sure employees feel empowered to come forward to raise concerns. Clearly set out the difference between whistleblowing and grievances in your whistleblowing policy and make sure that managers are properly supported in triaging difficult issues around bullying culture.

 

Being vigilant to trends or repeat incidents from multiple complaints or grievances e.g. harassment (#MeToo).  This again will alert an employer when a grievance issue has an additional whistleblowing element. Fostering a healthy workplace culture is key to minimising bullying as a concern within itself, as well as the knock-on effects that it may have on wider wrongdoing.

By Burcak Dikman


Our one-day Whistleblowing Masterclass has gone live online  – and our first training session has received great feedback from delegates.

Like many organisations faced with new ways of working, the Protect team have worked hard to deliver our in-depth training on whistleblowing and best practice into an engaging online product.

Our Legal Officer Hari Raithatha who delivered the online training alongside his colleague Nneka Egbuji, said, “It has not been a simple task to adapt our usual training to make it suitable for an online audience, but this streamlined product continues to be interactive and encourages delegates to ask questions. The feedback has been great so we are looking forward to the next one.”

The interactive training is suitable for those who wish to get a better understanding of handling whistleblowing concerns and offers:

  • An overview of whistleblowing, the Public Interest Disclosure Act and key legislative changes
  • Key policy messages – review your policy against best practice and understand your responsibilities
  • Handling the whistleblower and the concern– delivered through interactive case studies and scenarios

 

Some feedback from the online training delegates:

“The interactive parts were good, the breakout rooms worked really well. But I also felt that there was plenty of time to really get a lot of explanations and tips from the presenters.”

“The polls and the breakout sessions were a good way to keep people engaged.”

“Very good, with specific examples to understand nuance and complexity of some cases, but also broad enough to prepare for the unknowns.”

 

To find out more about our training and consultancy offer click here.

 

 


Protect has today published guidance for regulators and professional bodies in a bid to drive up public duty standards to investigate and improve whistleblower handling.

“Over 2019 our Better Regulators campaign set out to engage and collaborate with both regulators and professional bodies on how we could offer our whistleblowing expertise to see if we could help how whistleblowing was being handled by regulators” said Protect’s Head of Policy, Andrew Pepper-Parsons.

A series of open and insightful round tables with more than 30 regulators and professional bodies and the discussions and findings have helped to shape the guidance, ‘Better Regulators: Principles for Recommended Practice’  aimed at regulators, professional bodies, and law enforcement bodies who regulate professionals and those on the prescribed persons list.

“What we found through the round table discussions was a wide variety of approaches to setting standards. We were surprised some regulators did not see themselves as having a role here – while others thought that any standards would be too onerous for the diverse and numerous bodies that they regulated. We also found variation in how regulators themselves treat whistleblowers who approach them – how they act on concerns, and how they learn from the concerns raised” explained Protect’s Head of Policy.

The round table findings mirror data from Protect’s Advice Line, which handles around 3,000 whistleblowing cases each year who say their experience of regulators is ‘patchy and inconsistent’ with many finding regulators a ‘dead end for their concerns’.

Protect hope ‘Better Regulators: Principles for Recommended Practice’ will encourage higher standards in the regulatory landscape, offering insight on what a regulator or professional body needs to understand to run an effective whistleblowing system: accessibility, confidentiality, feedback and addressing victimisation.

“If regulators themselves respond better to whistleblowers, they will encourage others to raise concerns and harm will be stopped sooner. Whistleblowers who have had the courage to speak up will be respected and treated fairly. The wider public will benefit because wrongdoing is addressed” explained Protect’s  Head of Policy, Andrew Pepper-Parsons.

Read Better Regulators: Principles for Recommended Practice

Better Regulators Campaign


In the UK, certain regulators are recognised as ‘prescribed persons’ by the government, for example the Care Quality Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. Being a ‘prescribed person’ means that an organisation can be approached to receive and handle specific concerns, as listed online.

This matters for whistleblowers, as making a disclosure of information (i.e. blowing the whistle) to a prescribed person is an act which carries stronger legal protection than disclosing information to a body which is not ‘prescribed’.

The Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) Regulations 2017, passed on 1 April 2017, imposed new rules: a duty on prescribed persons to publish annual reports on the whistleblowing disclosures they have received by 1 October each year.

Prescribed persons have a duty to report:

  • The number of disclosures received from whistleblowers
  • How many of these disclosures lead to a regulatory response/action
  • What action was taken, and the operational impact of this (e.g. if the information from the disclosure helped the prescribed person to perform it’s regulatory function)
  • A summary of the prescribed persons own functions and objectives

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)

BEIS, who collate all the reports each January, have stated:

“The aim of this duty is to increase transparency … and to raise confidence among whistleblowers that their disclosures are taken seriously. Producing reports … will go some way to assure individuals who blow the whistle that action is taken in respect of their disclosures.”

However, BEIS also confirm:

“In collating these reports, BEIS has not assessed them for compliance with the duty. The legal obligation falls on the prescribed person to meet the annual reporting duty requirement.”

The Problem

The danger of introducing a duty and not even assessing compliance, far from enforcing it, is that this can bring the opposite of the desired effect – and reduce confidence in the regulatory system.

Our records show that almost three years on from the introduction of the regulations, almost a third of prescribed persons (32%) are not fully compliant with the reporting duty, and one in 20 have not published any of the information required by the duty. However, when prescribed persons do not comply with the duty to report, the government take no action for this breach of their duties; and it appears there are no plans to change this.

Without enforcement of the duty, how can confidence be built from the reports being published; how can a whistleblower be sure their concerns won’t be ignored, when over a third of all those prescribed don’t provide all the information that they are required to by law.

Protect are campaigning for a new law, which would enable whistleblowers to hold regulators to account if their concerns are ignored, or if their confidentiality is breached. Our new law would create a requirements for regulators to uphold set standards when it comes to handling and responding to whistleblowers. An oversight body, a Whistleblowing Commissioner, would be established, which would have powers to issue penalties if these standards are breached.

By Laura Fatah


Following the news that an employment tribunal has been lodged against Home Secretary Priti Patel under whistleblowing laws, Protect Chief Executive Liz Gardiner said the case showed how “whistleblowing laws can be used to hold even those in the highest office to account.”

She said: “Far too often we see managers and senior personnel disregarding codes of conduct, and bullying behaviour is too prevalent in today’s workplace. Ministers, as public office holders, have to adhere to the Nolan principles and their own ministerial code. This includes being accountable to the public for their decisions, and being scrutinised for that. We will watch this case with interest.”

Former Home Office permanent secretary Sir Philip Rutnam has said he was constructively dismissed from his role after accusing the home secretary of bullying behaviour.  Patel, who is  being investigated by the Cabinet Office over her behaviour, has denied claims  she bullied civil servants in three government departments.


The Covid-19 crisis has given rise to fast changing laws and regulations, and new loopholes and opportunities for fraud have emerged. Within a few weeks of the furlough scheme’s introduction, Protect has seen a rising trend in calls from whistleblowers concerned their employer is acting unlawfully.

Whistleblowers will be vital in policing this scheme to ensure that tax payers are not defrauded out of vital public funds.

Here is a summary of some of the cases (with changed names)  from the Advice Line:

Being asked to come back and work as a “volunteer”

The majority of the cases we have received to our Advice Line have focused on situations where workers have either been asked or told to go back to work even though they are part of the job retention scheme.

Craig works for a small company where all the staff have been furloughed. He and other staff have been asked to carry on working for the company as “volunteers”, so the work will be unpaid. Craig has raised this as part of a group of concerned colleagues, but his managers have responded to say that such arrangements are legitimate and that they took legal advice.

Some of our cases show whistleblowers being aware that their employer is breaching the rules across the company

We have also seen cases where whistleblowers have become aware of actions or plans to breach the Furlough rules that doesn’t involve themselves personally being affected.

Timothy works in the finance department of a small company.  During his work organising the company accounts he notices that he and 5 other members of staff (including a director) have been placed on furlough leave.  All the staff on the scheme are still working for the company.  Timothy raised his concerns with his line manager, the Finance Director. The response was to remove Timothy from the scheme, but the line manager refused to remove anyone else as he felt bodies such as HMRC would not have the resources to prosecute all those companies that breached the rules.

Dismissal, victimisation or threats when the concerns is raised

Worryingly, yet unsurprisingly we have seen whistleblowers threatened, victimised or dismissed once they have raised their concerns.

Some have been threatened with dismissal if they object to their employers plans:

Eloise is a senior manager working in financial services.  The Chief executive sent an email to all directors saying that staff will be furloughed (this is around 30 people) despite the fact that all staff are working from home and that as the staff work manly from sales commission which falls outside of the scheme. Eloise raised her concerns with the Chief Executive who threatened her with dismissal if she objected to the plan.

Other whistleblowers have been dismissed after voicing their concerns.

Mohammad was furloughed by his employer but was then asked to carry on working.  When Mohammad refused to work as it went against the Government guidelines his employer threatened him with dismissal.  A few days later Mohammad received a letter making him redundant as the company lacked the cash flow to pay his wages.

What a concerned worker can do if concerned:

Check the Government Guidance

Though the guidance has changed many times it is a good resource to look at what the Government have produced for workers, and what they expect from employers. This will give any concerned worker an idea of whether what the employer is doing breaches this or not.

Consider raising it first internally

Raising the concerns externally

If you do not feel that internal channels will be effective, or if you have already raised the concern internally, you can contact HMRC on their Fraud Reporting website via their online form.  You can also contact Protect for advice through our online form or by calling 020 3117 2520.


The High Court has today handed down judgment and awarded whistleblower Amjad Rihan $10.8 m in damages against his former employer, Ernst and Young.

Protect Chief Executive, Liz Gardiner said: “We’re pleased to see this award to Amjad Rihan, who courageously blew the whistle on serious financial irregularities and who suffered career-long losses as a result. A whistleblower who had exhausted internal processes, he acted reasonably in bringing this global scandal to public attention via the media and the judge said he would have had a strong whistleblowing claim. His employer owed him a duty of care, and failed in that duty.

While this was not a claim under the whistleblowing law (The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 “PIDA”), nevertheless the judge took into account the principles of PIDA when assessing whether Amjad acted reasonably. We’re also pleased to see the judgment accepts that the public interest should not be constrained by what may be an offence in other jurisdictions. PIDA states that a disclosure is not protected if the whistleblower commits an offence in making it – but today’s judgment clarifies that should only apply to offences under the laws of Great Britain.


Advice to health workers thinking of using social media to raise concerns during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Media reports of whistleblowers being gagged, dismissed or threatened with dismissal for speaking out publicly about issues in the global pandemic are worrying, and we at Protect have voiced these concerns in a statement saying how short sighted this approach is from employers.

A theme that has emerged in many of the reports is that whistleblowers have been dismissed, victimised or threatened by their managers after raising their concerns via social media.  A Tweet or a Facebook post about the lack of protective equipment or a lack of social distancing policies may bring the whistleblower into conflict with their employer.

Is a whistleblower legally protected if they use social media to raise concerns?

A whistleblower who is dismissed, forced out or victimised by managers or co-workers for using social media to raise concerns could be protected by the whistleblowing legislation the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA). Getting this protection is not straight forward as the legal tests a whistleblower would need to fulfil are the most stringent in PIDA when compared to situations where someone has raised concerns with either their employer or a regulatory body.

Disclosures to an employer

Raising the concern with the employer is the easiest way to get protection, the whistleblower simply needs to show:

  • They had a reasonable belief the concerns show a health and safety risk to any individual, or a breach of a legal obligation (which may include health and safety law) or one of the other categories of concern set out in the legislation.
  • They had a reasonable belief that raising these concerns was in the public interest (which generally means that they had a wider impact – not just on the worker themselves).

In both cases a reasonable belief means the whistleblower could be wrong about the concerns, e.g. after investigation, the concern itself did not endanger someone’s health and safety, but they would still be protected under law.[1]

Disclosure to a regulator

PIDA protects disclosures made to either a regulator or law enforcement body (the Government maintain a list of such bodies that fall into this category called the Prescribed Person list). Here the whistleblower would need to show reasonable belief in the concerns they were raising but on top of this they would need to show they reasonably believed what they were raising was ‘substantially true’.[2]

 Disclosures via social media

PIDA applies the same legal tests for protection to a social media post as would be applied to making a disclosure to a journalist or an organisation that is not a prescribed regulator (e.g. raising concerns about a lack PPE to health campaign group).

The whistleblower now needs to show that the social media post was a reasonable thing to do, in addition to showing they had a reasonable belief in the concerns, and a reasonable belief the concerns were ‘substantially true’.[3]

The legal tests are no longer based on the belief of the whistleblower at the time, instead, this is an Employment Tribunal deciding whether the social media post was a reasonable thing to do. PIDA outlines some key things a whistleblower would need to show:

  • they tried and failed to get the concerns addressed by their employer or a regulator
  • they reasonably feared victimisation if they raised the concerns with the employer or the regulator
  • they feared a cover-up (e.g. destruction of evidence) if they reported the concerns to their employer or a regulator
  • there is no regulator prescribed under PIDA to report the concerns to
  • the concerns are of an exceptionally serious nature

The key point is that for social media posts to be protected by PIDA requires a whistlebower to demonstrate that the disclosure was reasonable by showing that either they couldn’t raise the concerns else where or that they had tried, and this failed to get the concerns addressed.

In the immediate crisis, the Employment Tribunal may consider a whistleblower approaching the press as more reasonable than indiscriminate use of social media. Responsible journalists will be used to balancing the dual public interest of reporting on the crisis’ while avoiding spreading panic.  That said, there is case law that demonstrates what the Tribunal would consider  a concern “exceptionally serious in nature” that would warrant a disclosure to the media without approaching their employer or regulator first.  The case of National Trust vs Collins showed that Collins was justified in leaking a report detailing a chemical spill on a beach because the National Trust and the local council were too busy with a dispute over who was responsible for the clear up. During this time the public still had access to the beach, which posed a danger.

While PIDA doesn’t require a whistleblower to raise their concerns with their employer or a regulator first, it does require the whistleblower to have a compelling reason why they’ve gone down this path.

Is there a better place to raise the concerns?

The key question before using social media to raise any concerns is to ask yourself whether there’s a better place to approach first. Here’s an overview of those options:

Your employer

As well as having an easier path to protection under PIDA, a disclosure to the employer may get a quicker response to most concerns as they will be able to act on the concerns faster than a regulator, the media or a social media post.

Some options in the health service include:

  • As a first port of call speak with your line manager or supervisor
  • If you’ve tried to raise the concerns with your line manager or supervisor and they’ve been ignored, or for whatever reason you cannot raise it with your line manager or supervisor:
  • There are FTSUG (Freedom to Speak Up Guardian) if you work in England in certain NHS institutions.
  • With named contacts in your organisation’s Whistleblowing or Speak Up policy (see Protect’s webpage for information on raising concerns with your employer).  These can include directors, compliance personnel and board members.
  • Senior managers, directors, board members etc. who you trust or feel would listen to your concerns.

Raising the concerns internally first will not prevent a whistleblower from raising the concerns externally, whether that is a regulator, journalist or a social media post.

Regulators in the health service

If you do not feel that internal channels will be effective, or if you have already raised the concern internally, your next step may be to contact a regulator. Approaching a regulator with the concern comes with better protection and can still put pressure on an employer who has failed to take the concerns seriously.  When considering approaching a regulator look at our webpage on raising concerns with a regulator.

These are the regulators for the health service:

For concerns about Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) the following bodies, though not a prescribed body, could be a good place to approach with concerns before contacting a journalist or using social media.  They include:

Contacting a journalist

Approaching a journalist may well be a better option than using social media to raise concerns even if they both come with the same stringent legal tests.  This is due to how a journalist can shield a whistleblower’s identity through protection of sources and use a whistleblower’s concerns alongside other material, such as disclosures from other whistleblowers to publish a story about the situation.

If you are considering contacting a journalist or raising your concerns in a social media post either contact us at Protect on 020 3117 2520 or send us an email through our contact  online form.  You can also get advice from your trade union.

By Andrew Pepper-Parsons

[1]S.c. 43B (1) (a)-(f) of the Employment Rights Act.

[2] S.c. 43F (1) b (ii) of the Employment Rights Act.

[3] 43G (b) and (d) the Employment Rights Act 1996


Protect is reassuring NHS workers it is just a phone call away.

Protect Chief Executive Liz Gardiner said, “Whistleblowing is the best early-warning system in the NHS and now more than ever staff need to feel safe and supported when they speak up and that issues are properly investigated and resolved.

“We want NHS workers who are working under extremely difficult circumstances to feel reassured that they can get independent and confidential advice about whistleblowing by calling Protect.”

Protect handles around 3,000 cases each year through its free, confidential Advice Line. In addition, it trains businesses and organisations on best practice speak up arrangements.

If an NHS worker has a whistleblowing concern, NHS staff can raise the matter internally at the Trust, speak to their Freedom to Speak Up Guardian (England only), or call the NHS Whistleblowing Advice Line SpeakUp for signposting information. For NHS workers in Scotland, they can call the Alert and Advice Line. For strategic advice on how and where they can raise their concerns further, in addition to legal advice as to what their rights are in doing so, they can call the Protect Advice Line.

However, charity Protect says it has been approached by some NHS staff with concerns.

“Some NHS staff have told us they do not feel safe speaking up within their Trust and are not aware of what support channels exist. Our service at Protect is unique – we offer advice on how to raise concerns effectively, as well as explaining whistleblowers’ legal rights” said Protect’s Chief Executive Liz Gardiner.

Dr Jenny Vaughan, Learn Not Blame Lead, at Doctors Association UK, said, “Sadly the Doctors’ Association UK has been approached by many doctors who have been disciplined for raising concerns about lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and been told not to speak to the press. Patient safety is never best served by driving staff concerns underground. Bullying of staff when they speak out about safety is completely unacceptable.”

She added, “Doctors and nurses on the frontline have a right to speak out if they or their families or patients could be at risk. Our health service, both private and public, will only benefit if we learn from each other’s experience and we have a Learn Not Blame culture.”

Protect has the support of a number of lawyers who have agreed to give further support to health and social care workers during the crisis.

Protect Chief Executive Liz Gardiner added, “We hope that employers will listen-up when concerns are raised – but we’re grateful to the many lawyers in our legal support network who have kindly agreed to help, including barristers Daniel Stilitz QC, Mukhtiar Singh, and Joseph England and solicitors Paul Daniels at Keystone Law, Leigh Day Solicitors and Slater & Gordon lawyers – but please call Protect in the first instance”.

If further law firms or Chambers wished to lend their support and advice during the Covid 19 crisis, Protect are co-ordinating whistleblowing support to key workers should it be needed.

Doctor Katie Sanderson, who works in acute medicine, said “Healthcare workers are practising in very challenging conditions. It is crucial that everybody working in the NHS feels able to voice concerns openly, and that they are aware of the appropriate channels to do so. It is important that doctors and others are aware that free, high quality legal advice is available if they need it.”

 

Protect
Protect Advice Line – Tel: 020 3117 2520
Email whistle@protect-advice.org.uk

SpeakUp
NHS Whistleblowing Advice Line SpeakUp: 08000 724 725. 

Alert & Advice Line – NHS Scotland
Tel: 0800 0086112
Email: alertline@protect-advice.org.uk

 


Protect has put its name to an international civil society letter:

The signatories to this letter call on all public authorities and institutions to protect those who report or expose the harms, abuses and serious wrongdoing that arise during this period of crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. We also encourage all citizens and workers to participate in ensuring our governments, corporate institutions and markets remain accountable, and in defending the human rights and freedoms of all people.

The COVID-19 pandemic brings into stark relief the importance of accountability and the need for regular and reliable information from our public institutions and our leaders. The people of every affected country need to know the truth about the spread of the disease both locally and internationally in order to respond effectively and help protect their communities. Fairness, transparency and cooperation are vital and never more so than during a pandemic.

We have already seen examples of wrongdoing and mismanagement in our public institutions, commercial markets and business as a result of COVID-19. Emerging areas of concern include health system capacity and delivery, public procurement, violations of health and safety and labour law, inequitable and ill-prepared global supply chains, unfair competition practices and market abuses, and significant violations of personal privacy rights at scale through the digital tracking of individuals.

Proper notification of risk to the public and to workers, fair and responsible conduct by all institutions, and transparent data collection are all critical to public confidence in our ability to overcome this crisis. This is even more important when the protections normally provided by the fundamental democratic pillars of our societies are curtailed or side-stepped. Parliaments and democratic assemblies are being suspended in many countries. The use of extraordinary powers by governments without proper public oversight and transparency creates a tangible risk of overreach and potential misuse.

When decisions are taken in emergency conditions, often away from democratic scrutiny, whistleblowers can play a vital early warning role. They are the corrective fail-safe mechanism in any society, especially in an international health crisis when the public’s right to know can have life-or-death implications. In this time of crisis and beyond, we encourage citizens and workers to participate in ensuring that proper accountability is maintained in our governments, corporate institutions and markets, and in defending the human rights and freedoms of all people.

During this pandemic we have already witnessed abuses. At various times, the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and access to information have been restricted. The cost of these actions is most severely borne by the most vulnerable members of our communities: the elderly, the poor, immigrants and refugees, LGBTQ communities, prisoners, the multitudes of precarious workers as well as frontline workers in the crisis.

Whistleblowing has proven to be a powerful tool to fight and prevent actions that undermine the public interest. Our organisations call on all public authorities and corporate institutions to protect those who expose harms, abuses and serious wrongdoing during the COVID-19 crisis, and beyond. Workers are taking risks daily to maintain the many essential services which we rely upon, especially in these times, our health services, care for elderly care and other social and public services, as well as food supply and logistics, just to name a few. The importance of these workers, their right to a safe working environment and to speak up about threats to public health and safety, corruption, and other abuses must be recognised and protected. Their disclosures, as well as those from all citizens, are vital to preventing major disasters and reducing the impacts of the crisis on us all, especially on the most vulnerable members of society and our democratic systems.

 

Access Info / ACREC / African Centre for Media & Information Literacy / APW-Fíltrala / Archiveros Españoles en la Función Pública / Article 19 / Atlatszo / Blueprint for Free Speech / Centre for Free Expression, Ryerson University / Center for Independent Journalism Romania / CFDT Cadres / Cibervoluntarios / CREW – Greenwich University / Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation / Prof. David Lewis, Whistleblowing Research Unit, Middlesex University / ePanstwo Foundation / EPSU – European Public Service Union / Eurocadres – Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff / ETUC – European Trade Union Confederation / European Centre for Press and Media Freedom / European Federation of Journalists / European Organisation of Military Associations and Trade Unions   Fundación Ciudadanía Inteligente / Fundación Internacional Baltasar Garzón (FIBGAR) / Funky Citizens / Government Accountability Project / Prof. AJ Brown, Griffith University / Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights / International Bar Association / Legal Legion Loyalty / Maison des Lanceurs D’Alerte / Media Development Center / Oživení / Pistaljka / Protect / Proyecto sobre Organización, Desarrollo, Educación e Investigación (PODER) / Reporters United / Stefan Batory Foundation / The Disruption Lab / The Ethicos Group / The good lobby / The Signals Network / Tom Mueller / Transparency International / Transparency International Australia / Transparency international Estonia / Transparency International Greece / Transparency International Ireland / Transparency International Italy / Transparency International Slovensko / Dr Vigjilenca Abazi, Maastricht University / Vouliwatch / WIN Whistleblowing International Network / Whistleblower-Network Germany / X-net