|
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
|
