In a recent decision, Trevor Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which protects employees of publicly traded companies from adverse employment actions that “discriminate against an employee . . . because of” any lawful whistleblowing
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.
The Supreme Court in the UK has held in the case of Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti that, where the real reason for dismissal is a protected disclosure which has been hidden from the person determining the dismissal, by a person in a position of responsibility, the dismissal is automatically unfair, even where the
Workers in the UK are protected from suffering a detriment where they have made a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). To be protected under section 47B ERA 1996 the individual must be a worker as defined by s203(3) of that Act. A recent decision of the Supreme Court considered whether
On 7 October 2019, the EU Council formally adopted the new Whistleblowing Directive that will guarantee whistleblowers EU-wide standards of protection. The Directive obliges both public and private organisations and authorities to set up secure reporting channels, so that whistleblowers can report violations of EU law as safely as possible. Member States have two years
Amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) take effect from 1 July 2019 ushering in significant changes to Australia’s whistleblowing laws.[1] Chief among the key changes is a requirement on public companies and large proprietary companies[2] to have a compliant whistleblowing policy by 1 January 2020. A failure to have such a policy will be a criminal offence attracting a maximum penalty of $126,000.
As it is unlikely existing whistleblowing policies will be fully compliant with the new whistleblowing regime, it is important that organisations review their current arrangements for dealing with whistleblowers and make appropriate changes to their policy and process.
Importantly, while not all companies are obliged to have a whistleblowing policy, they must comply with the new laws, particularly their obligations to maintain confidentiality and take reasonable steps to prevent detrimental conduct towards a whistleblower. Having a policy will assist these companies to comply with such obligations, which come into effect from 1 July 2019, and also accords with best practice.
On the scope of subject access requests under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GRPR) in the context of compliance and whistle-blowing regimes, the Regional Labour Court (Landesarbeitsgericht) of Stuttgart decided that an employer was required not only to provide an employee with the records containing performance and behavioural data, but
Directors and senior managers and their employers should consider the recent Court of Appeal decision in the Osipov whistleblowing case very carefully. Briefly, by way of scene-setting, Osipov had made a series of protected disclosures and he was ultimately dismissed as CEO of the employer company pursuant to a decision of two non-executive directors (NEDS)
In late December 2017, the Australian Government tabled a Bill aimed at improving protection for whistleblowers in the corporate, financial, credit and tax sectors.
If passed, the new legislation will result in a range of changes taking effect from 1 July 2018.
Much attention was focused recently on President Obama’s decision, in the final days of his presidency, on commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning, who provided certain classified information to WikiLeaks. In France, new legislation has recently been passed and implemented harmonizing the protection of whistleblowing employees (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=4BBFD240827AF0FD9A6340FF254E6F1B.tpdila21v_3?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000033558528&categorieLien=id).
Who is concerned?
Under the new