Case Study: Whistleblowing

In every setting there should be a policy and procedures on whistle blowing. The whistle blowing Policy is put into place to provide protection against the person in the work place against victimisation or any form of punishment (physical or verbal) when concerns are genuine. If you suffer any victimisation or punishment due to whistleblowing you may be able to take your case to an Employment Tribunal. If you have any concerns about misconduct or malpractice that is occurring in your work setting you should report it to your manager/supervisor. All information given is confidential. The whistleblower is a person that discloses wrongdoing that threatens others, rather than a complaint about their own treatment.

Whistle blowing does take courage. There is the risk of being bullied or harassed as a result, but anyone who whistle blows has the right to protection from the person they have raised concerns about. If you suffer as a result of a whistle blowing incident the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 offers legal protection.

In today’s society, there are many things that make it hard for white collar crimes to be exposed. One of the main problem portrayed within this movie was how easily the media was able to manipulate exactly what people were allowed to see. Secondly, white collar crimes can be hard to prove because many times major corporations will hire external help to go out and find information that could ruin the whistleblowers reputation. By doing this the whistleblowers credibility can be jeopardized making it easier for the corporation to continue to be seen as a reputable organization (The Insider).

Two-way communication facilitates effective staff member compliance. Employees must feel that supervisors and managers will receive concerns with neutrality. To support this environment, compliance personnel implement formal procedures for voicing concerns. The procedure allows employees to anonymously report issues if desired. While larger enterprises may provide a toll-free hotline for this purpose, smaller firms might implement an open door policy.

For many whistleblowers, fear of persecution and retaliation has prevented them from speaking out against improper behaviors at their institutions. Because of the dangers that whistleblowers are exposed to, many companies have become proactive in promoting and protecting whistleblowing. As a case and point, we need to look no further than the banking giant, Barclays.

The Act provides protection only for those matters that involve security fraud so whistleblowing of other kinds of wrongdoing remain unprotected under this Act. Some of the wrongdoings or unethical

David Tuff should blow the whistle and expose Blue Mountain. According to Richard DeGeroge there are three conditions that need to be met for whistle-blowing to be considered ethically permissible. The first condition is that a threat of serious harm must be met (Desjardin page 171). Serious harm is a factor. There is the real possibility that one of the drunk drivers escorted onto the public roads could run a red light and get into an accident with another car or swerve off the road and hit a pedestrian; the possibilities of what could happen are endless. The second criteria states, “The whistle blower should first seek to prevent the harm more immediately through channels internal to the firm.” (Desjardin page 171) Tuff expressed his dissatisfaction of the new company policy to his immediate superiors. The only thing tuff received in return for his display of concern was angry remarks and a threat of losing his job. His immediate supervisor Director of Security Manuel Hernandez told him “he should worry less about his license and more about his paycheck.” As far as the third criteria, “if possible, the whistle blower should exhaust all internal procedures for preventing the harm”. (Desjardin page 171) Tuff expressed his concerns to his supervisors on

A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about a wrongdoing in their workplace or within the NHS or social care setting. If a person wishes to raise their concerns they should obtain a

The concept of a whistleblower is that of a person who decides to report unethical or illegal actions of or within their place of employment. From the text, an extension of the previous definition goes on to say, “They may be working for private companies, nonprofit organizations, or for the government. They may disclose information inside or outside their organizations—to supervisors, regulators, or to the media.” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p.47) Based on the definition, anyone of us can be a whistleblower. It doesn’t seem that the information disclosed is limited in anyway. Although, some of the information may not be protected

You’re right Timothy. But sometimes it takes more courage for the employees to speak up about unethical conduct of their superiors. Probably because they’re afraid of being retaliated like getting fired from work or demoted. Nevertheless there are laws like Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002 and Dodd-Frank (Section 922) that would protect whistleblowers from the retaliation of their employers and even reward if the whistleblowers can provide the original information to the SEC .

Jackson and Raftos (1997) referred to whistle blowing as an avenue of last resort. Employees find themselves in these situations when the authorities at their organisations have failed to take actions on reported issues affecting that organisation. Wimot (2000) likened whistleblowing to a spectrum. At one end of this spectrum whistleblowing would only cause minimal pain and scars on the stakeholders and organisation while on the other end is the worst scenario where the whistleblowing effects are turbulent and often experienced to be negative to all those involved (ibid).

addition, as a leader, when a whistleblower reports activity to you, first gather all of the

Whistleblowers perform in many careers and are found at all levels of an organization: scientists and secretaries, lawyers and paralegals, managers and staff, security personnel and computer specialists, etc. They are as varied in age, ethnic background, education, profession, sex, and income as the population at large.

As a result, the following came a lot of lawsuits, demanding compensation, and investigations, investigating the cause of the MIC leak, against the plant. During the investigations, both the government of India and the interior of the Union Carbide did research on that incident. We are not surprised at their different answers because the plant wanted to cover the truth that was harmful to themselves and the government as a result could not get the truth on the other hand. However, I can¡¦t deny that the plant really did something such as relief fund, training school, and so on to prove that they really wanted to compensate for that gas leak. In this case, I don¡¦t think that the CEO of Union Carbide should be arrested or be sentenced. But I do think he should be responsible for the whole case. In other words, he should resign for the whole incident.

Instead of focusing on becoming more competitive by improving product quality and providing faster delivery time, the management of Kitchen Best relied on paying bribes to the regional general manager of Hongua. As the CEO might be aware, the new management of Hongua is considering cancelling future orders with Kitchen Best if they find out about the bribery. The company will not only suffer financial loss but has also put the company at risk as the DMMD manager contravened the law, Prevention and Suppression of Bribery in the Private Sector in Macao by bribing the general manager of Hongua