Introduction

The Company is committed to the highest standards of openness, probity and accountability.

An important aspect of accountability and transparency is a mechanism to enable staff to voice concerns in a responsible and effective manner.

It is a fundamental implied term of every contract of employment that employees will faithfully serve their employer and not disclose confidential information about the employers affairs.

Nevertheless, where an individual discovers information, which they believe, shows serious malpractice or wrongdoing within the organisation then this information should be capable of being disclosed internally without fear of reprisal.

There should be arrangements to enable this to be done independently of line management (although in relatively minor instances the line manager would be the appropriate person to be told).

The Public Interest Disclosure Act, which came into effect in 1999, gives legal protection to employees against being dismissed or penalised by their employers as a result of them publicly disclosing certain serious concerns.

The Company has endorsed the provisions set out below so as to ensure that no members of staff should feel at a disadvantage in raising legitimate concerns.

It should be emphasised that this policy is intended to assist individuals who believe they have discovered malpractice or impropriety. It is not designed to question financial or business decisions taken by the Company in the ordinary course of its business nor should it be used to reconsider any matters that have already been addressed under harassment, complaint, and disciplinary or other procedures.

Once the "whistle blowing" procedures are in place, it is reasonable to expect staff to use them and not to voice complaints outside the Practice.

Scope of the Policy

This policy is designed to enable employees to raise concerns internally and at a high level and to disclose information that the individual believes shows malpractice or impropriety.

This policy is intended to cover employee concerns that are in the public interest and may at least initially be investigated separately but might then as a result lead to the invocation of other procedures e.g. disciplinary.

These concerns could include:

  • Financial malpractice or impropriety or fraud 
  • Failure to comply with a legal obligation or Statutes 
  • Dangers to Health & Safety or the environment 
  • Criminal activity 
  • Improper conduct or unethical behaviour 
  • Attempts to conceal any of these

This list is not exhaustive & employees must use their own best judgments

Safeguards

Protection

This policy is designed to offer protection to those employees who disclose such concerns provided the disclosure is made:

  • In good faith
  • In the reasonable belief of the individual making the disclosure that it tends to show malpractice or impropriety and that they have made the disclosure to an appropriate person (see below). It is important to note that no protection from internal disciplinary procedures is offered to those who choose not to use the procedure. In an extreme case malicious or wild allegation may give rise to legal action on the part of the persons complained about.

Confidentiality

The Company will treat all such disclosures made internally in a confidential and sensitive manner.

The identity of the individual making the allegation will be kept confidential so long as it does not hinder or frustrate any investigation. However, the investigation process may reveal the source of the information and the individual making the disclosure may need to provide a statement as part of the evidence required

Anonymous Reporting

This policy encourages individuals to put their name to any disclosures they make. Concerns expressed anonymously are much less credible, but they may be considered at the discretion of the directors.

In exercising this discretion, the factors to be taken into account will include:

  • The seriousness of the issues raised
  • The credibility of the disclosure
  • The likelihood of confirming the allegation from attributable sources

Untrue Allegations

If an individual makes an allegation in good faith, which is not confirmed by subsequent investigation, no action will be taken against that individual.

In making a disclosure the individual should exercise due care to ensure the accuracy of the information & should retain any evidence relating to the facts disclosed.

If, however, an individual is proven to have made malicious or vexatious allegations, and particularly if he or she persists with making them, disciplinary action may be taken against that individual in line with the normal disciplinary procedures of the Company.

Procedures for Making a Disclosure

On receipt of a complaint of malpractice, the member of staff who receives and takes note of the complaint & any evidence, must pass this information as soon as is reasonably possible, to the appropriate designated investigating officer as follows:

  • A Director will investigate complaints of malpractice unless the complaint is against a Director or is in any way related to the actions of the Director In such cases, the complaint should be passed to the another Director for action as appropriate.

If there is evidence of criminal activity then the investigating officer should inform the police. The Company will ensure that any internal investigation does not hinder a formal police investigation.

Timescales

Due to the varied nature of these types of disclosures, which may involve internal investigators and / or the police, it is not possible to set precise timescales for such investigations.

The investigating officer should ensure that the investigations are undertaken as quickly as possible without affecting the quality and depth of those investigations.

The investigating officer, should as soon as practically possible, send a written acknowledgement of the concern to the complainant and thereafter report back to them in writing the outcome of the investigation and on the action that is proposed.

If the investigation is a prolonged one, the investigating officer should keep the complainant informed, in writing, as to the progress of the investigation and as to when it is likely to be concluded.

All responses to the complainant should be in writing and sent to their home address.

Investigating Procedure

The investigating officer should follow these steps:

  • Full details and clarifications of the complaint should be obtained.
  • The investigating officer should inform the member of staff against whom the complaint is made as soon, as is practically possible. The member of staff will be informed of their right to be accompanied by a trade union or other representative at any future interview or hearing held under the provision of these procedures. This interview or hearing will always have a Director present
  • The investigating officer should consider the appropriateness of involvement of the Police at this stage
  • The allegations should be fully investigated by the investigating officer with the assistance where appropriate, of others
  • The investigating officer will make a judgment concerning the complaint and validity of the complaint. This judgment will be detailed in a written report containing the findings of the investigations and reasons for the judgment.
  • A Director will decide what action to take. If the complaint is shown to be justified, then this will invoke the disciplinary or other appropriate company procedures.
  • The complainant should be kept informed of the progress of the investigations and, if appropriate, of the final outcome.

If the complainant is not satisfied that their concern is being properly dealt with by the investigating officer, they have the right to raise it in confidence with another Director who is not involved in the process

If the investigation finds the allegations unsubstantiated and all internal procedures have been exhausted, but the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation, the company recognises the lawful rights of employees and ex-employees to make disclosures to prescribed persons (such as the Health and Safety Executive, the Audit Commission, or the utility regulators), or, where justified, elsewhere.

S Williams
13 April 2011
Director