European Whistleblower-Organisations Whistleblower-Netzwerk e.V, Freedom to Care and Explisit ask for more whistleblowing in Europe

Press release April 3^rd, 2007:

Europe needs more whistleblowing!

Whistleblowing takes place in Europe too rarely. That has fatal consequences: Corruption remains undiscovered, food scandals increase, environmental damage is hushed up and many avoidable accidents occur. Engaged workers often know what happens and would like to take action. But they hold themselves back due to a wrong understanding of loyalty and a wide-spread culture of silence. They fear being ignored or even punished.

Under the slogan “Europe needs more Whistleblowing” now three Whistleblower organizations from Germany, the United Kingdom and Norway have issued a common statement responding to the green paper of the European commission on labour law. Whistleblower-Netzwerk e.V., Freedom to Care and Explisit request the European Commission to take action on the topic. It should provide for an effective protection and improved conditions for whistleblowers, promote scientific discussion and inform the public of the advantages of whistleblowing.

A whistleblower is a person who publicizes internally and/or externally to the organization with which s/he is linked perceived risks, abuses and legal infractions whose disclosure is in the public interest.

In the US whistleblower protection laws have existed quite a long time and the House of Representative just recently voted for further improvements. However in already such legislation exists almost only in the United Kingdom. In Germany the Initiative Nachrichtenaufklärung recently named the lack of whistleblower protection to be one of the ten most neglected topics in the media. This must change!

Core elements of the future legislation, which is aimed for, are a right to a fair and independent investigation of the message, the right to inform esignated public/governmental addressees and in special cases also the public, as well as an effective protection against all forms of possible reprisals. Practical support for whistleblowers in their often difficult situation and a fair burden of proof are further important innovations, which are to make possible and promote whistleblowing in Europe.

The green-paper response stresses that a future European statute has to start at overcoming the obstacles that today hinder whistleblowing. Whistleblower disclosures are to be taken seriously and are to be investigated. There must be no reprisals for the deliverers of the unpleasant messages. This requires reliable legal safeguards. The necessary confidence of potential whistleblowers will only develop to become active instead of remaining silent if protection functions in practice.

Legally non-binding statements such as codes of conduct cannot guarantee that the organization or the enterprise concerned accomplishes an investigation and draws conclusions even if important interests of the enterprise and top management are at stake. Present practice shows that under such circumstances enterprises and organisations again and again hush facts up and react with reprisals. Therefore confidence can develop only if internal regulations are backed up by obligatory statutory rules and really independent external control by public bodies and courts. Especially when public bodies are concerned, public whistleblowing must also be possible as a democratic control mechanism.

Reprisals can appear in various forms reaching from dismissal through non-promotion to harassment and blacklisting for future employment. Therefore protection needs to be comprehensive and realizable in practice. Whistleblower protection needs to be granted even if accusations are wrong, as long as the whistleblower honestly believes they are correct.

Legal prohibition of reprisals however would not help whistleblowers if they would be required to prove that the reprisal had occurred as a reaction of their whistleblowing. As in the European anti-discrimination law the onus of proof must be changed. Consequently, when an employee is able to prove his/her whistleblowing and a negative change of the employment situation, it should be for the employer to prove that these issues are not linked. If he/she fails the whistleblower should have the choice between restoration of the state of affairs before the discrimination began or monetary compensation. Payment of damages should not be a merely limited compensation but cover all material and immaterial damages and costs.

Guido Strack the chairman of Whistleblower Netzwerk e.V., points out that the suggested legislation could to contribute to lowering obstacles and increasing confidence: “I hope that it will become normal that employees speak out about risks and abuses in time instead of remaining silent. Whistleblowing must become the normal case, which does not require heroes or martyrs with exceptional moral courage.”

Improved legislation would not only be for the benefit of employees that could speak and act more freely, but also for the benefit of top management and shareholders who could thus open new information channels beyond the hierarchical ones. Their workers would not have to succumb to social pressure to become disengaged. Since legal infractions could not be so easily hushed up any longer, the competitive conditions would also become fairer. Offenders will be deterred and many accidents will be avoided.

About the Whistleblower-Organisations:

Whistleblower-Netzwerk e.V. was founded in September 2006 as an alliance of whistleblowers, supporters and interested people, in order to help whistleblowers by advice and action. The network is promoting a change of thought and effective protection of whistleblowers in the economy, state and society.

The British whistleblower organization Freedom to Care, founded in 1991, offers tips, practical assistance and support for whistleblowers. Beyond that it campaigns for improvements of the whistleblowing laws already existing in the United Kingdom.

Explisit was created recently in Norway. One of the founding members is Per-Yngve Monsen, who had, as duty bound, in 2003 drawn the attention of Siemens Norway, at first anonymously, to illegally excessively increased accounts. Instead of ensuring protection as promised in internal guidelines, Siemens management launched a witch hunt for identifying the leak. Monsen was unmasked and finally dismissed. In 2005 Siemens was held to have acted wrongly and required to pay damages by a Norwegian court. Monsen explains his activities to promote better whistleblower protection with the words: “I dare to believe there will be better times with less corruption and improved democratic rights, everything else are quite sad.”

Further information and the complete text of the statement on the European Union green paper (in German and English) can be found on the web site: www.whistleblower-netzwerk.de.