Plant Services - September 2007 - (Page 74) IN THE TRENCHES review document had no ratings at all and Phil wasn’t allowed to add his comments or responses to the form. Two days later, Cara and Lewie informed Phil that he was being terminated. That afternoon, Lewie issued a company-wide e-mail saying that Phil took a position outside the Acme organization and that he was no longer employed here. How could this situation have been avoided? Are these scenarios more likely to occur with a decentralized structure? Is there some way to neutralize the threat that a whistleblower might represent? Do whistleblowers have any protection? Can any organization embrace the sound of the whistle? more relaxed about sales ethics, as seen in the controversy about perks given to entice doctors to prescribe their drugs. Anyone can set up an organizational structure that fosters an environment that complies with ethical, safety and environmental standards, but it must be driven from the top. Phil might eventually achieve his goal of bringing Acme into compliance. I think he has a good basis for a legal action against Acme, and he’s free to report Acme to the appropriate federal or state agency and provide them with ample documentation. That should be a wake-up call to Acme. Professor Homer H. Johnson, Ph.D. Loyola University Chicago (312) 915-6682 hjohnso@luc.edu An academician says: I’m not optimistic regarding the prospects for whistleblowers. Most get fired or shuffled to a dank office in a smelly basement. While whistleblowers think they’re providing a service, the employer often views it as disloyalty, insubordination or an attempt to get the company or the boss in trouble. Thus, unless you think you’ll receive strong support from the people you report the problem to, the safest course is to just keep your mouth shut. Often, management has a “tolerance zone” for ethics or safety violations. Consider the scandal concerning imported toys and lead-based paint. Chinese manufacturers knew this was occurring. So did U.S. distributors. Their attitude was that although the product was a violation of U.S. standards, An attorney says: The prime difficulty in proving a whistleblower case is establishing that the employee suffered harm. it wasn’t extreme enough to be a health hazard to the toy users. A whistleblower would have been ignored, maybe punished, because of this tolerance zone. I suspect that’s what happened, at least in part, at Acme. The critical factor in preventing the punishment is the attitude of top management. If executives look the other way or don’t think the violation is serious, it will be ignored and complainers will be punished. On the other hand, if top management thinks the matter is a top priority, there will be few violations and whistleblowers will be embraced. The pharmaceutical industry has strong protections to ensure their products comply with government standards. Companies in this industry usually have an Ethics Officer, who reports directly to the CEO, and whose job is to ensure the company is in 100% compliance. Frequent ethics reviews, quality audits and environment audits make sure the product meets the standards. That industry seems to be 74 The most distressing part is the way Acme removed all credibility from its ombudsman program. After this experience, Acme can hardly tout the benefits of the program. At the outset, an ombudsman should be a neutral person who acts as a go between to resolve an issue between two parties. Acme allowed one of its human resource staff to deal with Phil’s complaints and simultaneously issue him a warning. While it would be acceptable to allow an HR representative to serve as an ombudsman, it was totally inappropriate to allow the ombudsmen to present Phil with a warning about his performance in the same meeting when he voiced his complaint about the environmental data. If Phil’s boss felt his performance was deficient, he should have directly addressed it with Phil. Most human resource departments don’t discipline employees or review their performance. The human resource function should be to review a performance appraisal prepared by the supervisor or to assist a supervisor in determining the proper discipline. Acme’s second problem with respect to the ombudsman program was providing Phil with a warning about his performance in the same meeting in which he complained about accurate reporting of environmental issues. Acme virtually handed Phil a whistleblower case on a silver platter. For most plaintiffs, the prime difficulty in proving a whistleblower case is establishing that the employee suffered harm as a result of his complaints about illegal activity. One way to help prove a causal connection is to show that retaliation by a person who knew of the complaint occurred a short time after the complaint. Acme’s human resource department kindly delivered both of these facts to Phil. An employer who receives a report of illegal activity from an employee is well advised to take the complaint seriously, investigate thoroughly and take appropriate corrective action. Any discipline of an employee who has made a comSeptember 2007 www.PLANTSERVICES.com http://www.plantservices.com/voices/in_the_trenches.html http://www.PLANTSERVICES.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.