The European Council must ensure EU delivers on its promise to whistleblowers

The European Council has a responsibility to protect the positive amendments made to the proposal for a whistleblower protection directive adopted by the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee last month.

December 18, 2018Blog

The current deliberations of the European Council, suggest that the whistleblower protection directive, they are considering, could risk putting European whistleblowers in more peril rather than offering them greater protection.

On 23 April 2018, the European Commission published a draft law to protect whistleblowers across the EU.  A door was flung open that had previously been locked shut. Like our members and associates in the whistleblower protection community, the Whistleblowing International Network (WIN) welcomed the fact that EU was finally moving to provide a solid statutory basis on which member states would have to protect whistleblowers.  But on a second look, it turned out the draft directive made basic but fundamental mistakes.  It is from these errors that we have all been scrambling to recover.

Fortunately, JURI, the legal affairs Committee of the EP, the lead parliamentary committee in charge of responding to the draft rose to the challenge and did a lot to improve and strengthen the whistleblower protection draft.  If all the Committee’s amendments are adopted, the EU will have a strong foundation for protecting whistleblowers and protecting the public interest for years to come.

If all the Committee’s amendments are adopted, the EU will have a strong foundation for protecting whistleblowers and protecting the public interest for years to come.

However, the main mistake, which the EU Council seems set to embrace, is that the draft reinforces employer control over the reporting of wrongdoing.  It does so by making it a requirement for all those in a work-based relationship to report their concern to their employer first.  With a three-month imposed time-lag and a requirement to use the channels employers set up, it is akin to legislating an obstruction of justice.

The vast majority of all whistleblowers stay in-house trying to do their jobs and ensure their organisations fulfil their roles responsibly.  But those who perceive the need to go straight to the authorities should not, under any circumstances, have to guess whether a court would agree they were reasonable thinking that sharing their evidence with alleged wrongdoers would enable cover ups.  This is the exactly the risk that a whistleblower protection law should help alleviate.

The main mistake, which the EU Council seems set to embrace, is that the draft reinforces employer control over the reporting of wrongdoing.

In jurisdictions where the whistleblowing laws are hailed as examples of international good practice, whistleblowers have a choice about where to report. And in Serbia, where active implementation means protections are working better in practice than in most other countries, there is no time lag between reporting internally and going outside.  While reporting to the organisation will remain the default for the vast majority of whistleblowers, and it makes imminent sense for employers to do all they can to encourage their staff to speak up early, it is dangerous to make it a legal obligation.

Making staff use the channels that employers set up is almost worse.  The vast majority of whistleblowers raise concerns as a normal part of doing their jobs and, typically, it is only because of how their employers respond that they realise that something is really wrong.   Formal reporting of wrongdoing will only ever capture the tip of internal communications the directive seeks to protect; the iceberg is through routine reports of discovered problems though the supervisory chain of command and in sensitive assignments such as audits, inspection reports and reports of investigations.  Very few people who report problems are doing so as dissidents.

The EU needs to understand it is essential to protect the choice of channels for disclosing wrongdoing

The EU needs to understand it is essential to protect the choice of channels for disclosing wrongdoing if it means to fulfill the promises it makes in the introduction to the directive. Namely to protect whistleblowers as a means to safeguard freedom of expression no matter which channel they use, and to encourage and facilitate whistleblowing to the media as well.

The EU should do this on the basis that it:

  1. protects freedom of expression;
  2. it is the vital safety net for the public's right to know when organisations are corrupt or failing to take responsibility;
  3. it ensures employers take seriously their responsibility to make it safe and acceptable to report internally; and
  4. there is no evidence that doing so undermines internal channels as the genuine first port of call for individuals

The whistleblower protection community working together through the Whistleblowing International Network (WIN) to advance excellence in whistleblower law and practice around the world urges all policy makers to think long and hard about what whistleblower protection really means for them. WIN’s latest Legal Brief drafted by Tom Devine, Legal Director of GAP sets out the reasons why the EU Council must remedy these structural problems as a matter of urgency.

The question the EU Council members must ask themselves is whether they mean to deliver whistleblower protection that reinforces democratic accountability in Europe?

The question the EU Council members must ask themselves is whether they mean to deliver whistleblower protection that reinforces democratic accountability in Europe?  If the answer is yes, then they must ensure the law allows information on wrongdoing to flow as freely as possible to those who have the power to act – this includes both the employer and the regulatory authorities – and that it reinforces public disclosures as our mutually important fail-safe.

However, if whistleblower protection continues to be misconstrued as a matter of regulating potentially difficult employee/employer relations, the directive will continue its descent into an exercise in information control; mandating who, how and when information is allowed to be released outside of the employment relationship.  It will not only maintain the status quo, it risks dangerously reinforcing it.

Share it

Anna Myers 2014 045 (2)

About the author

Anna Myers is the Executive Director at WIN, a civil society network committed to excellence in whistleblowing law and practice.  Anna is a lawyer with 18 years’ experience advising whistleblowers, governments, and business.  She was advisor to the Council of Europe on the Recommendation on the Protection of Whistleblowers (2014) and drafted the UNODC Resource Guide on Good Practices in the Protection of Reporting Persons (2015).

MORE ARTICLES

Legal issues must not derail whistleblower protection law

By Martin Todd | January 9, 2019

Council legal opinion must not be used to delay completion of whistleblower protection legislation

The European Council must ensure EU delivers on its promise to whistleblowers

By Anna Myers | December 18, 2018

/ Blog The European Council must ensure EU delivers on its promise to whistleblowers The European Council has a responsibility to protect…

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.