A LEADING trade unionist who is a key figure in the Edinburgh College strike row has called for people who use whistleblowing procedures to be stripped of their right to anonymity.
Penny Gower, the campus branch secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, wrote to union members that individuals should lose this protection if they have been shown to make “fallacious” statements.
Whistleblowing groups distanced themselves from the suggestion, while Gower’s union at a national level also declined to support the controversial move.
EIS members at Edinburgh College went on strike last week in a bid to get a sacked lecturer reinstated.
It is understood he was fired after whistleblowers came forward to make allegations about him. College principal Annette Bruton heard his appeal but did not uphold it.
Picture: Bruton
Ahead of the strike ballot, Bruton sent an “all staff” email outlining her side of the story. She claimed the reasons for dismissal amounted to “gross misconduct” and included: “Misleading colleagues into believing that he was or had been a doctor.”
However, local EIS members backed strike action. It has now emerged that Gower, in her capacity as branch secretary, wrote to union members days ahead of ballot and urged a Yes vote for the strike.
She wrote that complaints had been made about the lecturer from three anonymous colleagues, continuing: “When fallacious statements are made via Whistleblowing procedures, and this is demonstrated, the persons should lose their right to anonymity."
However, this idea has not been welcomed by experts in the whistleblowing field.
Professor David Lewis, who leads the Whistleblowing Research Unit (WRU) at Middlesex University, said: "If an individual reports something confidentially and they are then identified by the employer, the clear message would be that you cannot trust that organisation. It would be the end of whistleblowing at that workplace.
"Even if the discloser was mistaken, I believe confidentiality should be maintained unless false information was knowingly supplied."
Anna Myers, director of the Whistleblowing International Network, said: “I think I would say that there is a risk here of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Unions play a deeply important role worldwide to protect workers who speak up to challenge abuses of power that cause harm or betray the public trust.
“If the College has dismissed someone unfairly then the focus quite rightly should be on how the College dealt this issue. If staff do not trust anyone, including the union, they will choose to report concerns anonymously or not say anything at all.”
Cathy James, Chief Executive of whistleblowing charity Public Concern at Work, said: "We would be concerned if whistleblowers were routinely disciplined for concerns that have been raised, but where they subsequently turn out to be wrong. Given that making whistleblowing work is all about making it safe and acceptable to speak up, the simplistic approach suggested by the union runs the risk of having a chilling effect because even though confidentiality is promised, there is a risk of being identified if you get it wrong with this approach.
After being contacted by this newspaper, Gower referred to separate Scottish Government and Edinburgh College whistleblowing policies which state that disclosures have to be made in “good faith” and not “maliciously”.
She stated: “We asked only that we had the opportunity to question the ‘whistleblowers’ at the disciplinary hearing against our colleague in the interests of natural justice and in line with the above policies.”
An EIS spokesperson said: “Whilst this is not a communication that was issued by EIS HQ, our understanding is that this particular email was issued by the branch secretary in relation to an individual disciplinary proceeding which, in the view of the EIS-FELA branch, has been deeply flawed and which relied on anonymous complaints that have subsequently been proven to be partially or totally false.
“For the avoidance of doubt the EIS supports the general protection afforded to legitimate whistleblowers.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel