RCVS whistleblowing

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

Richard Carter — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 16:52:06 GMT

the reason whistleblow was introduced was to allow for the reporting of unethical, negligent or behaviour/ performance below the expected standard to be brought to the attention of the authorities. Just think eg of NHS nurses having to accept the continued giving of sub-optimal care. Just don't think a whistleblower would be able to survive in a small business if you had just knifed your boss and employer in the back instead of having a frank, open and honest discussion face to face about the alleged transgression and you certainly would not survive if the reporting was rather about revenge

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

J G Wray — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 16:38:50 GMT

A bit of background. I got wind of this move to provide a confidential service for whistleblowing to RCVS. By coincidence I had been reading some stuff about business ethics here

http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/old/12_00/basics/whistle/rst/wstlblo_policy

It's a bit of a read, but here's the conclusion:

"..I have discussed briefly the essential components of whistleblowing policies and have presented what I believe to be three imperatives that compel your organization to consider adopting such a policy. In summary, I believe that organizations should establish whistleblowing policies in order to:

prevent retaliation against employees for expressing concerns about perceived wrongdoing (the legal imperative);
prevent public disclosures of alleged organizational wrongdoing, (the practical imperative); and
create a more just workplace (the ethical imperative).

In closing, let me point out that I certainly do not believe that whistleblowing policies are a panacea for all ethical problems. Indeed, establishing such policies is just the first step. Communicating to employees the policy is equally crucial, and this means more than just an annual letter from the CEO. Ethical training sessions should be undertaken to acquaint employees with ethical dilemmas unique to your organization. Concrete examples of the types of activities that should be disclosed through internal whistleblowing channels should be discussed with employees. Employees should understand that they must be responsible in making accusations of wrongdoing, and that malicious or reckless charges are not sanctioned. Employees should understand how the organization will respond to their concerns in terms of an investigative process.[12]

The policy must be more than words on paper. Writing a policy, adopting it, and then going on with business as usual will do nothing to protect your company or to improve ethical conduct. The policy must reflect the real commitment of your organization to prevent retaliation against employee whistleblowers; encourage employees with ethical concerns to discuss them internally rather than externally; and create an overall environment within which employees have the opportunity and desire to behave ethically and responsibly...."

JGW - I don't see why RCVS should be getting involved at all in the business, the management of veterinary practice. Ethical and other public interest problems should be handled by the veterinary practice, not the dead hand of RCVS. Furthermore, I have concerns over the implicit guarantee of sercrecy from RCVS in respect of the confidential whistleblowing both for the whistle blower and the vet who about whom allegations are made.

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

Bob Russell — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 14:47:49 GMT

The legislation is for those who have been treated unfairly or lost their job. Half way down the page!

You don't have to be dismissed to get the protection. Despite this it seems that whistle-blowers are likely to have a bumpy ride ahead of them!

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

J G Wray — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 12:35:44 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

As with many things .gov.uk comes to your help like a knight in shining armour!

https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing/what-is-a-whistleblower

[/quote]

This piece of legislation is designed to protect whistle blowers who are dismissed unfairly. It would be enacted at an employment tribunal, which is a last resort sort of place.

The criteria for supporting a case of wrongful dismissal on the basis of whistle blowing is that the whistle blower acted in the public interest as narrowly defined

RCVS' version of the public interest is not the only reason for RCVS encouraging whistle blowing. They have other grounds as well. RCVS have to make a judgment about what to do with the information. If their tests are met, they give themselves permission to act.

That action will be to inform the veterinary surgeon who has had the whistle blown that they are acting in some manner worthy of RCVS enquiry following a confidential tip off. The vet can either accept or reject this approach. If it is rejected then RCVS can proceed or let the episode lapse. If the RCVS proceeds, then, unless the whistle blower is identified the vet will have an RCVS enquiry based on an anonymous tip off and that calls into question fairness and a presumption of innocence.

Back at the practice the RCVS action will come to light. Whatever the reason for the whistle blowing there a re no contracts of employment that I know of which detail RCVS whistle blowing as a mechanism for reporting inappropriate professional conduct or whatever other criteria RCVS want reported. So, a practice employee, the vet, is subjected to scrutiny precipitated by a confidential reporting process. This is not what the practice employers have set up, so a whistle blower has gone outside the terms all employees of the practice have agreed to in their employment contracts, so how should the whistle blower be treated?

RCVS tell whistle blowers their contact is confidential. How much protection does that really give them?

Those, particularly those who are convinced of their own invincibility and irreproachable behaviour should feel free to ignore these questions. I'm just curious how far a superficially well meaning exercise might take a whistle blower and have asked opinion that's all.

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

Bob Russell — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 09:28:30 GMT

As with many things .gov.uk comes to your help like a knight in shining armour!

https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing/what-is-a-whistleblower

I would expect the RCVS and/or the BVA and/or VDS to give confidential advice and guidance even if it is not directly their responsibility.

ACAS and/or Public concern at Work.

What whistle are they blowing? The Telegraph and Mail also seem happy to take any half cocked story they can find.

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 09:21:14 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] GOT IT![/quote]I'm glad you did. I sometimes wonder what JGW is on, what his real agenda is and if he is just looking for a fight over nothing. The word troll comes to mind at times.

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 08:48:24 GMT

GOT IT!

Wynne

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

J G Wray — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 08:39:51 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]RCVS have no juristiction over practices, only veterinary surgeons. Therefore there'd be no point in reporting a non-veterinary employer.[/quote]

Yes, only a veterinary surgeon would be reported, but both the person reporting and the vet reported may be employed by a third party. If the report goes nowhere, and the person reporting is not using the systems detailed in their contract then what happens to the whistle blower. They only get protection in law if the matter is in the public interest and RCVS' criteria are not the same as those.

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 08:33:38 GMT

RCVS have no juristiction over practices, only veterinary surgeons. Therefore there'd be no point in reporting a non-veterinary employer.

Wynne

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

J G Wray — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:01:18 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

I wouldn't think the employer could do anything until the result of any investigation is known. If the accusation/compliant is found to be justified, then any disciplinary action could be seen as an attempt to silence them?

[/quote]

RCVS are irrelevant in any employment dispute and not all staff are employed by veterinary surgeons, so should someone have knowledge that they had been reported to RCVS by a member of staff, what would they expect to happen to the whistle blower, given their terms of employment?

I can only see no problem if the person reported is wholly and unquestioningly grateful someone has reported them. If there is any lack of acceptance then the whistle blowing fails, so what should happen to the whistle blower then?

RCVS knows it cannot protect the whistle blower from their terms of employment so why is it getting involved and why does it think it could protect a whistle blower by offering a confidential service?

Then there is the question of either a malicious report or one without merit. Why should RCVS protect the whistle blower and deny employers their opportunity to use any disciplinary procedures accepted by all others in the workplace?

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 06 Jul 2016 19:06:14 GMT

RE: RCVS whistleblowing

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 06 Jul 2016 18:42:30 GMT

Not sure what you're getting at here JGW - are we talking about the practice imposing disciplinary measures?

I would say that if there is enough evidence for the employee to justify blowing the whistle and it is proven then any gagging terms of their contract are irrelevant and the employer better watch out it he tries to take disciplinary action.

The whistleblower should then feted as a hero (unless its Edward Snowden of course).