Pour votre info.

From: BERNASCHI Corina Alina (HR)
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 6:11 PM
To: '[Emailadresse]'
Subject: Guidelines on Whistleblowing in the EU

Dear Ms James,

On behalf of Karen WILLIAMS, please find attached a note related to the above-mentioned subject.

Best regards,

Corina Bernaschi
Secrétaire
 

Commission européenne
Direction Ressources humaines et sécurité
HR.IDOC – Service d'investigations et de discipline

MO34 4/114
B-1049 Bruxelles/Belgium
+32 2 29 76102

[Emailadresse]

From: WILLIAMS Karen (HR)
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 5:51 PM
To: BERNASCHI Corina Alina (HR)
Subject: FW: Whistleblowing in the EU

From: Cathy James [mailto:[Emailadresse]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:10 PM
To: WILLIAMS Karen (HR)
Cc: SLOOTJES Rene (HR)
Subject: RE: Whistleblowing in the EU

Dear Ms Williams,

My sincere apologies for the delay in coming back to you.  We are in the middle of a campaign surrounding the amendment of PIDA which has rather taken over our workplanning.

I have attached here a scanned copy of the paper with my amendments written on it – unfortunately as the document is a pdf, I could not work typed comments into the document.  

I appreciate that some of my comments may be difficult to work in at this late stage. My detailed thoughts are as follows:

·         You do need to work in the assurances you provide to staff in the introduction to the document.  The second paragraph suggests that the best way to persuade (encourage?) staff to report concerns is to have clearly defined reporting channels, when in reality the best way to encourage them is to give them very clear assurances on their own position (which I see comes later) and also on confidentiality. The section on mobility may in fact deter a whistleblower who may be under the impression they will have to move jobs if the working environment becomes too difficult. This contradicts assurances that the individual will be protected.

·         What is the difference between ‘clear reporting channels’ and ‘safe and accepted routes’ in paragraph two? I thought this was attempting to distinguish internal reporting channels and where externally an individual might go, but the language/distinction needs to be clearer.

·         5th para, first page – you will see I have suggested alternative wording for ‘wrongdoings’ – instead try using ‘risk, malpractice or wrongdoing’  Generally throughout the document there is reference to serious irregularity, but this is not clearly defined, although there is also reference to ‘serious professional wrongdoings’.  While I would not encourage an exhaustive list, the best way to approach this is to look at the types of issues you would want staff to report upon (perhaps linked to the code of conduct) and link those issues into the definition.  At present it really is not clear. Likewise on P3 – it would be good to define ’serious irregularities’, especially as you have introduced a duty to report – I see that this comes into paragraph 1.4, but what do you mean by ‘serious professional wrongdoings’ or ‘information not linked to the performance of one’s duties’?

·         Do you need to introduce an obligation to blow the whistle? I think this is problematic when the wrongdoing is ill-defined.  Is there an obligation on staff to report breaches of the Code of Ethics?

·         Do staff always have to report their concern in writing – if so then the advice provided should be referred to earlier as it is built in that staff can obtain advice – I assume this need not be in writing..?

·         I am not sure that the tiered system really works as drafted as there is an obligation on the official receiving the concern to report it to OLAF.  While the document says the person raising the concern has a choice as to what to do, this must be passed to OLAF – is this really the intention?  I am not sure that this works as presently drafted.

·         Why put a condition on the circumstances in which a staff member can choose to bypass their line management?

·         Section dealing with anonymity – is there evidence to suggest that these are more often frivolous etc.  I think the better angle is to say that where a concern is raised anonymously it is not possible to protect the individual and may hinder an investigation if the evidence of the whistleblower is essential.  The aim here is to explain to staff why they are not encouraged to raise a concern anonymously, not to place a barrier for the protection of the staff member.

·         Not sure the section on limits works – presumably if a staff member makes serious and untrue damaging allegation, this would be dealt with in the good faith section – in relation to private gain – this is only relevant where we look at legal protection which is triggered if there has been detriment or dismissal and the staff member is seeking compensation.  I cannot see that there is any compensation provision in these guidelines and the use of the wording appears to mirror UK law which is not applicable here.

·         What mechanisms are there for dealing with allegations of retaliation and dismissal? Perhaps use either reprisal or retaliation throughout the document if there is no difference between the two. What quantifies as a reprisal?

·         To whom should the whistleblower be able to demonstrate the time allowance is unreasonable? Why 60 days?

I appreciate that this is just a brief first overview of these provisions and would be pleased to provide you with our more detailed thoughts and drafting suggestions, or perhaps a briefing paper with suggested amends if this might be helpful, but I would need to have some resource in order to provide more detailed consultancy of this nature.  I am of the view that the current draft needs significant amendment to ensure clarity.

I do hope that this brief email is helpful.

Kind regards

Cathy

Cathy James

Chief Executive

Public Concern at Work | 3rd Floor | Bank Chambers | 6 - 10 Borough High Street | London SE1 9QQ | Tel: 0207 404 6609 (advice line) | 0203 117 2520 (other enquiries) | Fax: 0207 403 8823 | Website: www.pcaw.org.uk |To keep up to date with top whistleblowing news – sign up to our newsletter

Description: Description: Follow WhistleUK on Twitter

Public Concern at Work: Speaking up for the public interest. Registered charity no. 1025557. For information about our advice line, how to access training or support or if you would like to see how we make whistleblowing work, visit our website or download our latest report Whistleblowing: beyond the law

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information.

From: [Emailadresse] [mailto:[Emailadresse]]
Sent: 29 May 2012 12:03
To: Cathy James
Cc: [Emailadresse]
Subject: Whistleblowing in the EU

Dear Ms James

We note that we have not yet received your comments on the draft policy paper on whistleblowing sent to you on 7 May. In view of the proposed timing for finalising the text I would be grateful if we could receive your comments as soon as possible and in any event before close of business tomorrow, 29 May in order that they can be taken into consideration.

Yours sincerely

Karen Williams


From: WILLIAMS Karen (HR)
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:11 PM
To: 'Cathy James'
Subject: RE: Whistleblowing in the EU

Dear Ms James – ok, though if you can forward your comments before the end of the week this would be appreciated. Best wishes, Karen Williams


From: Cathy James [mailto:[Emailadresse]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 12:51 PM
To: WILLIAMS Karen (HR)
Subject: RE: Whistleblowing in the EU

Dear Ms Williams,

Thanks for this and we would be pleased to review the attachment.  We will try to comply with your deadline, but given other commitments, it would be easier for me if we could respond by the end of the w/c 21 May  if that might be possible?

Kind regards

Cathy James

Chief Executive

Public Concern at Work | 3rd Floor | Bank Chambers | 6 - 10 Borough High Street | London SE1 9QQ | Tel: 0207 404 6609 (advice line) | 0203 117 2520 (other enquiries) | Fax: 0207 403 8823 | Website: www.pcaw.org.uk |To keep up to date with top whistleblowing news – sign up to our newsletter

Description: Description: Follow WhistleUK on Twitter

Public Concern at Work: Speaking up for the public interest. Registered charity no. 1025557. For information about our advice line, how to access training or support or if you would like to see how we make whistleblowing work, visit our website or download our latest report Whistleblowing: beyond the law

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information.

From: [Emailadresse] [mailto:[Emailadresse]]
Sent: 07 May 2012 17:33
To: Cathy James
Cc: [Emailadresse]
Subject: Whistleblowing in the EU

Dear Ms James,

 

Following our earlier contacts, I would like to take you up on your kind offer to have a look at the draft policy paper that we will be proposing.

 

It incorporates most of the recommendations made by PwC. Some other recommendations will also be implemented but are not an issue for staff (for example the recommendation to keep detailed statistics). The recommendation of having an addressee outside of the EU institutions and bodies was not considered feasible, due to budgetary and legal restraints and to the fact that the Commission is obliged to protect the highly confidential information given to it by third parties (business secrets etc). Further explanations will be given to staff in the form of FAQ's.

 

Please find enclosed the text, which once finalized is intended to take the form of guidelines, and will be communicated to all staff. We are still fine-tuning it, but we would be most grateful to have your comments on it. In view of its adoption before the summer break, a reply by 21 May would be much appreciated.

 

Kind regards,

 

Karen Williams

 

 

 

Karen Williams

Director 

Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC)

European Commission-DG Human Resources and Security

rue Montoyer 34, Office 4/78, 1049- Brussels

E-mail: [Emailadresse]
Phone: +32.2.29.65575

Fax: +32.2.29.98709

 

You are hereby informed that this message contains  information intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, and have received this message by mistake, please delete it and immediately notify us. You should not copy or disseminate this message to anyone without previous authorisation.