Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing illegal and ethical activities within a community, polity or an organization. If whistleblowers are not controlled, they can cause material and reputational damage to the entity involved. This paper makes an exploration into the subject of whistle-blowing by analysis of a case the recent past. Thereafter, a discussion will be made in the following subsections: definition and the laws governing whistleblowing, the background of the case and lastly, the researcher’s opinion. A viable conclusion will then be drawn in relation to the discussion.
Section 1: Definition and Laws Governing Whistleblowing
According to Scatturo (2018), whistleblowing can be defined as the revelation or exposure of the wrong actions of an organization to the relevant authorities or the public. The action of whistleblowing is informative in nature. It seeks to create an alert of an immoral or illegal action by an organization. According to Shimabukuro and Whitaker (2012), the Whistleblower Protection Act offers protection for employees who expose their organizations or the government for involvement in illegal matters. Any case that qualifies for whistleblower protection should have three basic elements; personnel action, protected disclosure and a covered employee.
Covered employees refer to former employees, current employees or state persons who are willing to disclose the illegal acts that an organization or government is involved in. These employees earn the protection of the whistleblower statute. The element of protected disclosure ensures that all illegal actions disclosed are treated in an unbiased manner regardless of whether they involve the government or executives in an influential organization. It is important to make mention of some examples of offenses which can be exposed by whistleblowers. They include cases mismanagement, embezzlement of public funds, abuse of office and engaging in activities that are dangerous to public safety (Shimakuburo & Whitaker, 2012).
The third element of regarding the protection by the act involving whistleblowing is the personnel actions element. This element is keen on agency activity for their employees with regards to appointments, promotions, employee disciplinary and corrective actions, transfer of and reinstatement of employees, evaluation of employee performance and employee issues regarding pay, awards and employee training. The aforementioned elements guide the execution of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act. These elements guide the implementation of the Act for in issues of investigations, corrective actions, disciplinary measures, interventions and individual rights to actions (Shimakuburo & Whitaker, 2012).
Section 2: Case Background
The case of interest regarding whistleblowing is the case involving the Great Lakes Restaurant Management board. This case was filed on 18th of February, 2016. The case identification number is Case 03-Case CA-The Hotel management was accused of coercing rules and actions such as surveillance. Another charge against the hotel management was the discharge offense. In this case, discharge referred to the refusal to hire employees and unlawful laying off of employees. Upon being summoned by the National Labour Relations Board, the hotel management denied the allegations of treating their employees unfairly (NLRB, 2018).
Upon assessment, it was evident that two employees indicated evidence of facing termination in an unlawful manner. The employees decided to address the issue using the Whistleblower’s protection act because they believed that it was their right to use such an avenue to solve their dispute against their former employer. The reason for use of this avenue was found valid and reasonable by the National Labour and Relations Board. On the contrary, the accused found defense in the Dispute Resolution Act. This act prohibits employees from engaging in any activities which seek collective action with regards to their terms and conditions of employment for the organizations that they work for (NLRB, 2012).
Section 3: My Opinion
In my view, the hotel management was protecting itself from legal action using the shield of the dispute resolution act. This act selfishly protects only the employer. In fact, the act is concerned only with the operational well-being of the management board of the hotel. Thus, the hotel management uses this act as a cover-up for their ill-treatment to their employees. This act does not tally with the employee rights and labor laws. Therefore, in my view, this act promotes the violations of the rights of the employees by their employers.
In order for justice to be fulfilled, national labor and relations board had to make a wide consultation and review of the labor laws and rights of employees. In this assessment, the best approach for solving the former employee accusations against their employee will be sought. This way, employers can avoid taking advantage of employees with a negative perception of violating their employee rights during their tenure in employment.
Conclusion
From the discussion above, it is evident that the whistleblower acts as a resourceful mediator in a quest to seek justice for injustices committed to the public by organizations or government.
References
National Labour Relations Board. (2018). Great Lake Restaurant Management Case, LLC. Retrieved from: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/03-CA-143685
Scatturo, R. (2018). Defining Whistleblowing. International Anti-Corruption Academy
Shimakuburo, A. J.O., &, Whitaker, P. L. (2012). Whistleblowers Protection under the Federal Law: An Overview. Retrieved from: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42727.pdf
