---------------------------------------------------------------------End
Editorial
Released on January 06 , 2019 @ 17:10 EDT
Whistle-blowing
and the employment relations implications
There
is no universal definition of whistle-blowing. Research on the topic
dates back to the 1980s, with the most common definition offered.
They referred to whistle-blowing as ‘the disclosure by
organization members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or
illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to
persons or organizations that may be able to effect action.
This
article explores protection of whistle blowers and legislative frame
work. It does so by
using a justice theory lens to examine the how to protect workers
who may feel the need to blow the whistle on employer wrongdoings.
The employers appear reluctant to embrace the idea of more legal
protections, while cultural stigmas attached to the idea of
‘blowing the whistle’ may inhibit people coming forward. The
article contributes to justice theory and employment regulation, as
well as whistle-blowing practices, and some recommendations are
suggested to improve awareness of whistle-blowing rights for
workers.
Whistle-blowing
concerns one area of employment regulation, shaped in part by the
multiple roles of employers, employer associations, trade unions,
and State agencies. The concept of ‘regulatory space’ attests to
more fluid and dynamic interactions among employment actors, rather
than the assumption that the government or the State is the primary
or sole executive agent of regulatory impact show how regulatory
laws can be colonised by employers as a conscious attempt to weaken
worker rights to participate in managerial decision making processes
at both transnational and national levels. More specifically, laws
concerning whistle-blowing regulations require consideration of the
interactions that take place not only within the foci of
organizational policy but also those that occur beyond the immediate
enterprise and involve the roles of actors in lobbying for
legislative change.
The
indeterminacy of work and employment mean that whistle-blowing is
likely to be a contested terrain. Indeed, workers are typically well
informed of the inner workings of an organisation and, as such, may
have access to information that external regulatory bodies or the
general public do not. Workers are, nonetheless, at a distinct power
disadvantage relative to the authority exercised by management and
their employer. The management of people on numerous issues is
fraught with issues of perceived (un)fairness, (in)justice, and (in)equality.
Such complexities surrounding the management of people at work means
that whistle-blowing, as a contemporary regulatory practice, is
underdeveloped both conceptually and empirically.
Researchers argue
that there is a deficit with regard to the theoretical development
of whistle-blowing. The personal stresses involved in disclosing a
corporate wrongdoing or malpractice can affect perceptions of
fairness and legitimacy and have implications for employee’s
identity and self-esteem. Importantly, numerous factors, both
internal (e.g., managerial attitudes, role of unions, etc.) and
external (e.g., employer associations, laws, regulations, etc.),
relate to peoples’ perceptions of the justice and legitimacy
concerning whistle-blowing rights. Above all, the potential
victimisation of a worker by the employer following a disclosure of
information is likely to be shaped by power and authority relations
over-and-above individual perceptions of whistle-blowing and, thus,
connect to the core theory of the management of employment.
Theoretically,
perceptions of fairness about organisational policy and especially
how managers enact regulations into actual practice have been shown
to provide important insights concerning the power dynamic embedded
in managing people. Justice theory can help better understand those
issues and perceptions of fairness or injustice surrounding
employment regulations that may prompt workers (or managers) to blow
the whistle on an issue or practice. As researchers have noted, from
the whistle-blowers’ point of view, satisfaction with
organisational procedure will depend on their perception of
procedural fairness.
Justice
theory has advanced understanding about the complexities and
tensions surrounding employment regulation and management policy
shows that an employee will determine the fairness of management
policy in line with what procedures are in place. Researchers
report that effective HR policies foster positive perceptions of
justice. Researchers also report validity in the justice theory
concept as a tool to analyse the reactions of both the employer
(e.g., the recipient of a public disclosure) and the employee (e.g.,
the whistle-blower). We now briefly assess the relevance of
‘procedural (legal)’, ‘distribute (resource allocation)’,
and ‘interactional (relationship)’ justice dimensions for
whistle-blowing regulation.
Researchers
suggest that the law has three separate and distinct functions
(regulatory, restrictive, and auxiliary), which can affect policy
and practice. Auxiliary power relates to the encouragement of
certain norms and sanctions surrounding the bargaining process to
regulate the behaviour of the parties towards one another. The
regulation of the employment contract is crucially a key feature of
government control in establishing (or removing) legal rights and
obligations. Researchers explain that legal regulation is ‘a
countervailing force to counteract the inequality of bargaining
power which is inherent in, and must be inherent in the employment
relationship’.
The
regulation for whistle-blowing rights resonates with an examination
of the procedural dimension of justice. In short, are new
whistle-blowing rules and laws likely to be perceived as
procedurally fair? Importantly, line managers and supervisors often
determine procedural fairness, and workers are likely to engage in
whistle-blowing if matters are not adequately handled. It is
unlikely that a worker will perceive legal regulations as fair if
such laws easily allow managerial retaliation or victimisation of
the worker. In
addition, those who make a protected disclosure should not
experience any subsequent adverse consequences, including selective
downsizing, ostracism, harassment by superiors, and victimisation.
Potentially, a procedurally just and equitable whistle-blower policy
may assist in not only achieving legal compliance (e.g., eliminating
fraud and corruption) but also encouraging managerial innovation
through more engaged employee voice and freedom of speech speak-up
programmes.
Editor
WikiLeaks Sudbury
January 2019
Note:
This
article originally published on Irish
Journal of Management, 36(3), 221-232. Brief
overview and excerpts of the articles and concepts are noted above.
Reference
Halpin,
L., Dundon,
T. (2017). Whistle-blowing and the employment relations implications of
the ‘Protected Disclosures Act 2014’ in the Republic of Ireland, Irish
Journal of Management, 36(3), 221-232
Related documents |