Share this post
A European Union country’s interior ministry has been fined after it was found not to have sought clarity over making changes to the working arrangements of a group of protected whistleblowers. While the country’s whistleblower protection office did not rule on whether this amounted to retaliation, it imposed a penalty based on the ministry’s failure to follow proper procedure as required by the country’s implementation of the EU Whistleblowing Directive.
This anonymised case study shows how seriously regulators take the protected status of reporting persons and the potential sanctions for businesses or government bodies that fail to meet the requirements of the law.
Background
A group of ten police officers associated with the EU member state’s national crime agency had gained prominence for investigating high profile corruption and organised crime. As a result of their work investigating high profile figures such as high-ranking police officials, they were afforded the status of protected whistleblowers.
However, in the early 2020s, the country’s Minister of the Interior took a series of detrimental actions against the officers, including temporary suspension from duty, reassignment and termination of employment. The minister cited suspicions of illegal activity by the officers for his actions, but the country’s whistleblower protection office investigated the ministry over whether it had followed due process.
What happened next?
Under the law, the ministry should have requested consent from the whistleblower protection office to take such measures before carrying them out. Had this happened, the office would have then assessed the suggested measures to determine whether they constituted retaliation against whistleblowers for making their reports.
The whistleblower protection office issued a €90,000 fine to the ministry for this failure.
Retaliation against whistleblowers
The EU Whistleblowing Directive, on which EU member states must base their whistleblower protection laws, states in Article 19 that “Member States shall take the necessary measures to prohibit any form of retaliation against persons referred to in Article 4, including threats of retaliation and attempts of retaliation.
The scope of retaliation includes everything from being dismissed as a result of making a report to being blackmailed, being passed over for promotion and losing out on contracts. Any reporting person who is the victim of retaliation is entitled to redress, which “should be determined by the kind of retaliation suffered, and the damage caused in such cases should be compensated in full in accordance with national law.”.
Article 23 says that there should be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties” for companies or individuals who retaliate against whistleblowers.
Conclusion
Although in this case it was not determined whether retaliation took place or not, the ministry avoided its decision being scrutinised in the correct manner. It is important for businesses and public organisations to understand the legal steps they should take involving whistleblowers. This includes putting in place policies and educating colleagues on avoiding retaliation and the sanctions for failing to adhere to this element of whistleblowing law.
To create a secure reporting system that encourages whistleblowers to come forward and highlight instances of misconduct in the workplace, use IntegrityLog. The platform is user-friendly and allows your investigating team to communicate with the reporting person while ensuring confidentiality. Request a demo today.
