EU whistleblower directive must give whistleblowers all reporting options

The European Union is expected to shortly adopt the EU’s flagship whistleblower protection directive. EPSU, believes it is essential that the final legislation fully protects whistleblowers and encourages whistleblowers to report wrongdoing, through which ever route they consider most appropriate, be that the media or relevant authorities.

March 7, 2019Blog
doctor pexels-photo-1919236

We believe it is also important the whistleblowers have the support by being represented by trade unions throughout the reporting process.

Currently the French government, amongst others, is particularly adamant to force potential whistleblowers to report first internally before going to a public authority or to the media.

Right to choose

Two high profile cases relating to health show why whistleblowers must be free to choose reporting channels.

The French ‘Moussaron Affair’ was exposed by Céline Boussié, a medical-psychological assistant, reporting the long-standing abuse of disabled children at the Institute for Disabled Children (IMC), in Moussaron, where she worked between 2008 and 2013.

Two high profile cases relating to health show why whistleblowers must be free to choose reporting channels.

She initially reported internally, after which the institute attempted to intimidate her into silence. Her team faced repercussions, she became isolated within the organisation. Ms Boussié faced intimidation from her colleagues in a vicious social media campaign her house and garden were attacked, and she felt so frightened she moved her two children out of their family home. So internal reporting clearly only had negative effects for the whistleblower in this case.

Despite the internal pressure, Ms Boussié, then reported externally to the public Regional Health Authority, Government Ministers and to the President of the French Republic. She received no replies, and nothing was done.

Media attention

It was only after a TV documentary exposed the horrific abuse taking place at IMC, that the Minister for Health placed the institute under Provisional Administration, putting an end to the many years of abuse. However, Ms Boussié paid a very high price, for whistleblowing. She was forced out of the Institute and, on top of it, the IMC launched a legal libel case against her.

Throughout all of this, Ms Boussié received practical and legal support from the trade union, CGT-Santé et Action Sociale, who organised protests in support of her outside the court buildings and has been calling for institutional abuse to be recognised as a criminal offence. Eventually IMC’s lawsuit for libel was dismissed. The judgement confirmed the horrific veracity of what Ms Boussié had reported.

These cases highlight two essential points ... : [whistleblowers] must be allowed to report outside the workplace without having to go internally first and they must be supported and represented by trade unions.

Another legal case which Ms Boussié filed with the support of the union in 2013 is still ongoing in the labour court. She continues to receive legal, practical and moral support from the CGT. Ms Boussié is determined to clear her name, win the case for unfair dismissal, be reinstated and have her status as a valid whistleblower, fully recognised. The final stage of the labour case is to take place shortly.

Internal reporting without impact

The second example which challenges the insistence on mandatory internal reporting, concerns blood donor machines, produced by Haemonetics, a US company. In 2013, Mr Berthelot and Mr Urrecho, two employees of Haemonetics, reported internally to their then employer concerns about the company’s blood donor machines that ran high risks of carcinogenic contamination for donors. Their concerns were totally dismissed by the company. Once again internal reporting had no impact. The whistleblowers then went to the relevant public health authorities, who ruled the evidence against Haemonetics machines inconclusive.

In 2015 Mr Berthelot reached out to Guylain Cabantous, employee and trade union representative at the French Blood Agency (Etablissement Français du Sang, EFS), an important customer of Haemonetics. Mr Cabantous carried out his own investigation in light of the public agency’s quality control procedure and concluded that the machines were indeed faulty, filing written reports to his employer.

The lack of reaction from the public authorities eventually hit headlines. In May 2018, the two whistleblowers with the support of Mr Cabantous’ union filed a complaint to the Court against the health authorities and Haemonetics for endangering the life of others and failing to phase out an harmful product.

It is strongly believed that it is the combination of public disclosure and legal complaint which eventually led the French health authorities to suspend in September last the use of the Haemonetics blood donors machines until an in-depth investigation has been completed. The French union, CGT Santé welcomed the temporary decision.

Retribution fast and fierce

For the two Haemonetics employees, however, retribution was fast and fierce. Mr Urrecho was dismissed for medical unfitness, despite having worked for Haemonetics for thirty years and Mr Berthelot was sacked for ‘disloyal behaviour’ in 2015.

Trade unions can be an effective shield against whistleblowers’ isolation.

Both whistleblowers went on long-term sick leave before the termination of their contracts came into force. The trade union CGT-Santé et Action Sociale had been supporting both Berthelot and Urrecho, throughout this long process, giving them advice, support and representing them not the least to have their sickness absence recognised as occupational.

These cases highlight two essential points for the directive to protect effectively whistleblowers: they must be allowed to report outside the workplace without having to go internally first and they must be supported and represented by trade unions. Trade unions can be an effective shield against whistleblowers’ isolation.

Share it

Nadja 2018 High Res 708 Mar 6 2019

Nadja Salson

Nadja Salson is a policy officer at the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU). Her brief covers National and EU administrations. She is also the Coordinator of TUNED, the EPSU-led trade union delegation, for the European social dialogue committee for central governments. Other dossiers include tax justice, migration policy, prison services and the defence sector. Nadja is also a member of the WhistleblowerProtection.EU coalition of trade unions and NGOs.


Rozière MEP speaking at EBU event

Rozière positions whistleblower protection law as response to public concerns

By Martin Todd | November 28, 2018

European institutions have been seen as being too close to lobbyists and vested interests. It would be a real shame if member states’ representatives were now seen as acting against public concerns, in resisting a whistleblower protection law which encourages the reporting of crime and wrongdoing, said Virginie Rozière MEP.

Danske Bank whistleblower testifies at European Parliament

By Martin Todd | November 26, 2018

The now famous Danske Bank Whistleblower, Howard Wilkinson, testified before the TAX3 European Parliament Committee last week.

European Parliament takes stand on stronger whistleblower directive

By Martin Todd | November 22, 2018

The WhistleblowerProtection.EU platform is celebrating a job well done, after the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament passed a strengthened whistleblower protection directive, on the 20th of November.

Political battles loom in fight for robust European whistleblowers Directive

By Tom Devine | November 14, 2018

The EU’s whistleblower protection directive, is in a state of flux, key political battles are being fought right now. The whistleblower proposals as they currently stand, have several Achilles heels tucked into the directive’s fine print.

The role of media and investigative journalism

By Jennifer Baker | July 4, 2018

The LuxLeaks revelations were unprecedented not only in the level of corruption they uncovered, but also in the vast array of journalists from different media organisations working together to uncover corruption.

Why cross-border coherence matters

By Jennifer Baker | July 4, 2018

Many of the biggest whistleblower disclosures of recent years have been international in nature – LuxLeaks and the Panama Papers in particular. As pointed out by the Greens in the European Parliament, there is a general European public interest that often supersedes the national interests of a single member state.

State of play

By Jennifer Baker | July 2, 2018

Protection for whistleblowers in Europe is currently a patchwork affair. Some countries, such as Ireland having robust laws in place, while others, such as Cyprus, have practically none. 16 EU member states have specific laws or provisions, and 10 of those adopted their laws or in the past 5 years.

Secured By miniOrange