Under the whistleblowing regime in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA), it is unlawful for someone to cause or threaten to cause detriment to, or victimise, a person because they believe or suspect that the person has made, may have made, or could make a whistleblowing disclosure (Whistleblower). Very substantial civil and criminal sanctions apply for both the individual engaging in detrimental conduct and the corporation that employs the Whistleblower and the antagonist.… Continue Reading
The Affordable Care Act (ACA)—or “Obamacare”—has gotten plenty of attention due to technical glitches with the HealthCare.gov website, consumers’ difficulties obtaining (or keeping) insurance through the exchanges, and Health Secretary Sibelius’s recent resignation.
But some notable provisions of the ACA have gone largely unremarked—particularly an amendment to Title 29 of the U.S. Code.
Added by the ACA, § 218c of Title 29 not only protects employees who receive ACA healthcare credits or subsidies, it also shields employees who:
- report violations of “this title”;
- testify, assist, or participate in a related proceeding; or
- object to or refuse to participate in violations
French employment law does not provide for a comprehensive and consistent set of rules for the purpose of protecting whistleblowers. Instead, French employment law tackles issues arising out of whistleblowing situations through a relatively meagre set of legislative provisions resulting principally from recent awareness on the subject.
Specific regulations: limited protection
Under currently applicable legislation (which is quickly evolving), no employee can be disciplined, dismissed or discriminated against for having reported, in good faith, the following:
- Moral and sexual harassment;
- Facts representing a serious risk to public health or environment;
- Facts relating to the safety of certain pharmaceutical
This article was written by Lara Kerbelker, an associate at Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa
The Labour Court recently handed down judgment in a matter where a colonel in the SAPS was transferred to a functionally non-existent post after he exposed corruption in the unit.
Colonel Roos was employed as an internal auditor in the Crime Intelligence Division of the SAPS. He was appointed to conduct an investigation into fraud and corruption in the Secret Service Account by the Head of Crime Intelligence. After Colonel Roos disclosed proof of wide ranging corruption, his investigation was abruptly stopped, and he was … Continue Reading