Landmark Employment Rights Win for Bicycle Courier

/in /by

In a case that could have a considerable impact upon the UK gig economy, a London tribunal ruled that Maggie Dewhurst, who works as a courier at the logistics firm City Sprint, should be granted the same rights as other workers despite her status as a self-employed worker.

To receive the same treatment as a fully employed worker gives Ms Dewhurst certain employment rights otherwise denied to self-employed staff, such as sick pay, holiday and and the right to UK national living wage.

The tribunal decision largely relates to a complaint Ms Dewhurst made in regard to pay issues. A statement issued by the tribunal acknowledged that City Sprint “unlawfully failed to pay her for two days’ holiday”, despite the two years of dedicated service she gave to the company.

Reacting to the ruling, City Sprint expressed “disappointment” and will now be reviewing options for an appeal. A spokesman for the business commented:

“This case has demonstrated that there is still widespread confusion regarding this area of law, which is why we are calling on the government to provide better support and help for businesses across the UK who could be similarly affected.”

This individual case could have a large impact upon all companies that are part of the so-called gig economy. This is an area of customer focused UK employment that consists of companies hiring self-employed workers using contracts that limit their employment rights so that they are given working without regular shift patterns unlike full-time workers.

A recent tribunal ruling much like the City Sprint case involves another popular courier business; the taxi-hailing app Uber. This hearing saw legal action being taken by Uber employees and resulted in the business having to provide self-employed drivers with the same benefits that ordinary workers benefit from.

Although Uber intends to appeal this ruling, there are several other tribunal cases currently being heard against other courier businesses relating to claims of unfair treatment against self-employed workers which might also challenge conduct of the gig economy. The other businesses at the centre of these cases include Excel, Addison Lee and E-Courier.

Ms Dewhurst’s case was ruled as one of unfair treatment due to the extent of the workplace expectations placed upon her by City Sprint, which goes far beyond self-employed duties. She stated the following regarding workers of her position:

“we spend all day being told what to do, when to do it and how to do it. We’re under their control. […] that’s why we deserve basic employment rights like the national minimum wage. I’m delighted that the tribunal ruled in our favour as it has set a legal and moral precedent which others can use to make similar claims.”

Some self-employed workers believe flexible working contracts deny them basic employment rights in a job market that leaves them little to no other employment option.

Employers are unsurprisingly less critical of the use of such contracts, which they often defend on the grounds that they are beneficial to workers due to the flexible working hours offered, which in can potentially let workers conveniently balance personal responsibilities with work.

Many workers and employers both feel that current employment laws need to be edited so that all contracts make clear the law for self-employed workers, thus protecting everyone in a manner that is clear for both parties.

The UK government is currently awaiting the results of an independent review into the modern practices of self-employed workers. It is due for publication in spring 2017.

 

MPs Seek Maternity Discrimination Rights For New Mothers

/in /by

The government is progressing with a detailed consultation to assess the various means by which employers might act in a discriminatory away against new mothers in the British workplace.

This investigation comes after a series of eighteen recommendations were put forward in August 2016 by MPs working as part of the government’s Women and Equalities committee. The goal is to establish safeguards that will protect new mothers against employer actions which might cause them to leave their position either through direct dismissal from an employer or as a result of unfair treatment that forces them to resign their position.

UK Business Minister Margot James has spoken about the importance of the consultation and the dedication the committee MPs have for it:

“We are determined to tackle pregnancy and maternity discrimination and a key part of that is making sure new and expectant mothers are supported and treated fairly by their employers. There should be zero tolerance of discrimination against pregnant women, or women who have just given birth.”

Ms James has also stated how the discriminatory actions of bosses goes beyond harming new mothers to ultimately impacting upon UK businesses as a whole: “It is shocking that some employers still behave in this way and alienate a key group of their workforce. It makes no business sense.

The Women and Equalities committee has issued the results of several interviews that were conducted with new mothers to support its position. One anonymous woman claims a planned interview for a partnership position at a law firm was rejected once she returned to work after maternity leave. She subsequently left her position due to the discrimination she suffered.

Another woman, who also chose not to be named, saw her PR position get denied after she returned form maternity: “Before I fell pregnant, I had been asking about promotion opportunities, and possibilities were discussed with my manager […] On my return from maternity leave, I raised the issue of promotion again, and was told that if I wanted any hope of promotion, flexible working would make it very difficult.

Sufficient evidence proves that many working women feel too scared to voice their concern about maternity and pregnancy discrimination for fear they will be regarded as “trouble makers” should they do so, and that any such disclosure will have repercussions for their career as a result.

In total the amount of new and expectant mothers who claim to be forced from their jobs has doubled since 2005, to a total of 54,000.

The Women and Equalities committee seeks an all-encompassing protection for women that will include a “substantial” decrease in the existing £1,200 fee required for bringing a maternity convenience to tribunal.

An extension on the three month deadline for registering a claim is also sought, with the hope of doubling this period to six months. This comes despite government insistence that no evidence indicates an extended time frame will encourage more women to speak out.

TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady believes that negotiating tribunal fee costs is vital for stopping pregnancy and maternity discrimination occuring: “Bad bosses will continue to get away with discriminating against new mums as long as it costs up to £1,200 to take a pregnancy discrimination claim […] My advice to women is to join a union […] pregnant women and new mums are treated better in workplaces that recognise trade unions.”

How Will Employment Law Change in 2017?

/in /by

Each year the employment law world experiences a number of changes that will ultimately affect the rulings made by many tribunal hearings.

The past twelve months saw the sanction of a number of government established changes take that will come into law during 2017. Both employers and employees should understand what these changes mean for them. Read on for a number of the most prominent changes that will shape 2017.

Increase of Minimum Wage
From April 2017, the British National Minimum Wage will rise for workers aged 25 and over. The new rate will be set at £7.50 per hour; a 30p increase.

The government has long expressed support for working towards a minimum wage of £9 per hour for all workers aged over 25 by the year 2020.

Although reaching this goal appears to be increasing, the current UK rate is still far below the sum that analysts believe is a fair level of pay when measured against the cost of living in Britain, which is an estimated £8.45 per hour, with £9.75 for London workers.

There will also be a pay increase for workers below 25, as both the 18-20 and 20-24 age groups will see increases of £5.60 and £7.05 respectively.

Foreign Staff Employment
From April 2017, employers who rely on the contribution of workers who hold a Tier 2 visa will now be required to pay a £1,000 employment fee for each worker in accordance with the introduction of the new immigration skills charge. However, charity organisations and smaller businesses will only be required to pay the lower fee of £364 each.

This change coincides with new laws that require Tier 2 workers planning to apply for jobs in Britain as an ‘experienced worker’ to be earning a salary with a minimum of £30,000 per annum. Although some workers employed in the education and health sectors may be exempt from this rate of earning.

Mandatory Apprenticeship Funding
The upcoming year will see large companies need to fund apprenticeship schemes across their business; a move that is hoped to raise at least £3 billion for the UK economy; of which the government will contribute an additional 10% per month.

The tax for this apprenticeship scheme will be set at a rate equivalent to 0.5% of each company’s overall salary bill. This tax, sometimes referred to as the ‘payroll tax’, applies to companies with an annual salary roll in excess of £3 million. This salary cap prevents smaller businesses from suffering against the financial costs involved.

The costs incurred must be also be used to support existing apprenticeships and job training opportunities to allow workers aged 16 and over then opportunity to learn whilst working, with the goal of them gaining a nationally recognised qualification relevant to the business’s industry.

Employers can track their levy sums via a custom account created by the Digital Apprenticeship Service, and they will have the option of an allowance of £15,000 to assist with any difficulties incurred by the cost of the new scheme which begins in May 2017. Businesses that have only recently begun to trade may qualify for additional government assistance.

Gender Pay Gap Report to be Issued

After years of planning, businesses in the public sector with a pay-roll of more than 250 employees will finally have to reveal details of any pay gap between men and women that may exist within the company.

Private and voluntary sectors will be obligated to reveal this information at a later date, with a deadline for the publication of these reports expected in 2018.

Additionally, new rules will be set for stipulating how employers are allowed to release key information regarding the salaries and bonus payments for male and female workers.

Tax-Free Childcare 
The long-awaited tax-free childcare scheme will at last be implemented in 2017. This will allow working families with children aged under twelve to receive 20% support for overall childcare costs, with the maximum amount for an eligible claim set at £2,000 per annum. Although the financial income of a home might be a factor in deciding what the individual minimum and maximum entitlements should be for that family.

Families with disabled children will see the maximum age for their children to receive support raised to seventeen.

The current childcare voucher scheme, supported via employers, will continue to be available for new applicants until April 2018. Families currently relying on this scheme can continue to do so as long as their employer maintains the policy, or until the new tax-free childcare system becomes mandatory.

Salary Sacrifice 
Salary sacrifice benefits are to change from April 2017 as outlined in the 2016 Autumn Statement. This means that most salary sacrifice schemes will soon no longer have permission to avoid the costs required by income taxes, although tax arrangements arranged before April 2017 are to stay protected until April 2018.

Trade Union Balloting 
During 2017 new balloting rules will begin under rules outlined by the Trade Union Act 2016. This includes strike action only being granted if the majority of workers vote in favour of it. A 50% minimum turnout of workers is required.

 

 

 

 

Depressed Care Worker Wins Big Payout Following Unfair Dismissal

/in /by

Those who suffer unlawful treatment in the workplace commonly suffer psychiatric injury as a result, and Employment Tribunals (ETs) have broad powers to ensure that they are properly compensated. In one case, a veteran care worker who was plunged into depression before being unfairly dismissed won substantial damages.

The woman had worked for a local authority for 40 years but was suspended after allegations were made about her method of working. She suffered depression as a result and spent a long time on sick leave. She was not kept properly informed of the progress of prolonged disciplinary proceedings, nor that their focus had been shifted from her conduct to her capacity to do her job. She denied that she would never be fit enough to return to work but was ultimately dismissed.

After she lodged a complaint, an ET found that she had been unfairly dismissed and had suffered disability discrimination in respect of her depression. Given the gravity of the initial allegations, it accepted that her employer had had no option but to suspend her. However, it went on to rule that her dismissal was related to her disability and was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The ET awarded the woman £15,000 for injury to her feelings, £10,000 for personal injury and a further sum for future loss of earnings. The latter two awards related to her continuing depressive condition. In dismissing the employer’s challenge to those awards, the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected arguments that they were excessive and should not have been made in the absence of expert medical evidence.

Unfair Dismissal Can Blight Your Lifetime Earnings

/in /by

Unfair dismissal can blight your career indefinitely but, with the right legal advice, you can be compensated for every penny you lose in earnings. One case that proved the point concerned a finance director who was persecuted for whistleblowing and found herself out of a job in middle age.

The woman blew the whistle on the chief executive officer of the company for which she worked in respect of a share deal. She ultimately resigned, but her complaint that her constructive dismissal was automatically unfair, within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was upheld by an Employment Tribunal (ET).

The ET ruled, however, that a two-year cut off should apply to her future loss of earnings claim. That was on the basis of medical evidence that she would by then have achieved optimum recovery from the trauma of her dismissal.

In upholding her challenge to that decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) noted that the woman was in her fifties and was unlikely ever again to achieve such a senior position, nor such a high level of remuneration. Her recovery was not expected to be complete even after two years of rehabilitation.

The work that she was likely to find in the future was at best that of a financial controller. In the circumstances, the EAT found that her loss of earnings arising from her dismissal would continue throughout her working life. The case was sent back to the same ET for the value of her claim to be reassessed upwards.

Sacked Maritime Armed Guard Has Compensation Hopes Boosted

/in /by

When losing parties read an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision, fairness demands that it should be clear to them exactly why they have failed. In one case where that did not happen, a maritime armed guard who was sacked after failing to get on with a client won a fresh chance to prove that his dismissal was unfair.

The Ex-Royal Marine was employed to provide armed security services on board vessels at risk of piracy. After he attended an induction day with a new client, the latter stated that it did not wish to work with him. The company that employed him assured him that it would investigate the matter further, but did not do so before his fixed-term contract expired.

He complained to an ET that he had not received the benefit of a disciplinary hearing at which he would have had the opportunity to explain himself, and his employer had failed to seek out alternative employment for him. The ET, however, found that his dismissal was fair in that it fell within the range of reasonable responses open to the company, and accepted the employer’s arguments that it was not its practice to see if there was alternative work in other sections of the company and that the market was contracting.

In ruling on the man’s challenge to that decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the ET had reached a permissible conclusion that, in a contracting market, there was no evidence that alternative vacancies existed at the time within the company or its associated businesses.

However, in upholding his appeal, the EAT noted that the company had specifically told him that it would investigate his falling out with the client further. There was, in the circumstances, no sufficient basis for the ET’s assumption that the company had actively decided not to proceed with that investigation in the belief that it would not have altered the outcome, rather than simply allowing the matter to drift. The ET’s decision was therefore unsafe and the case was sent back to a freshly constituted ET for reconsideration.

Think-tank Report Says UK Agency Workers Are Exploited

/in /by

Christmas 2016 will see an estimated 340,000 UK workers employed for temporary work via agency contracts which provide only minimal legal protection against unfair treatment in the workplace.

This revelation is part of the research from a new think-tank report conducted by the UK Resolution Foundation that reveals details of its eighteen-month investigation into how British agency workers are treated. Findings of the report show that many agency-contracted workers are shockingly underpaid compared to their non-agency colleagues despite performing the same duties.

The report entitled Secret Agents: agency workers in the new world of work intends to create awareness of the discriminatory nature of non-agency work in a manner similar to how other recent reports have brought attention to issues that negatively affect workers who are employed via zero-hours contracts. There is considerable overlap between the two work forms, as14% of agency workers are also employed via zero-hour contractual agreements.

The Resolution Foundation’s senior policy analyst, Lindsay Judge, has noted how addressing agency issues is often neglected: “While zero-hours contracts are often in the news, agency workers are the ‘forgotten face’ of the modern workforce, despite being just as prevalent across the labour market.”

Agency workers now account for a very significant volume of the UK workforce. In London nearly 20% of the city’s workforce are on non-agency contracts, and many of these workers lack the employment rights non-agency staff are accustomed to, such as sick payments and parental leave.

The report also reveals that workers employed via agencies are from a much broader range of age groups than the 18-30 bracket that agencies are often believed to employ.

Lindsay Judge feels “it is important that the discussion of the non-traditional parts of work in modern Britain consider the relatively lower pay that agency workers receive compared to identical employees in similar jobs.”

This view is supported by Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of TUC, who states that “agency workers are often paid less than their permanent colleagues, even when they do exactly the same job […] We need the government to toughen the law to create a level playing field for agency workers.”

The report also highlights how agency contracts are often used for long-term rather than short employment, contrary to past reports of how such contracts are usually temporary and short-term.

The Resolution Foundation has spoken ahead of the report’s publication, claiming the organization is not biased towards the nature of agency work, and fully recognises how there is often a need for such contracts as workers often search for flexible employment to support their lifestyle arrangements.

However, the report does draw attention to the fact that a considerable number of workers on agency contracts are not choosing to work this way, and that 60% of workers would rather be fully employed if given the choice.

In 2011 approximately 200,000 UK workers were on agency contracts that existed across a range of industries, from office temps to hospital nurses. This figure has more than quadrupled to around 865,000 since then. The Resolution Foundation’s report estimates this number will increase to more than a million by 2020.

The largest sector for agency employment is the health and social care sector, which has a staggering 18% of the UK’s agency staff.

The report shows that despite more men being employed via agency work (54%), women account for 85% of the workers employed during the recorded increase that has occurred in the UK over the past five years,

An imbalance in the number of ethnic workers on agency contracts is also evident in the report’s findings, as 20% of agency workers are non-white despite accounting for only 2.7% of the workforce.

There has been a surge in agency related case coming to tribunal in recent months, including high profile grievances involving household names like Deliveroo, Uber and Sports Direct. These cases all involved grievances relating to the unfair treatment of staff.

One area of concern regarding agency contracts is the legal loophole often referred to as the ‘Swedish derogation’. This allows employers to pay temp workers less than their fully-employed peers as long as the agency is paying them continuously for a period of at least four weeks during times when the business is unable to find work for those workers.

Dorchester Hotel Criticised Over New Grooming Rules for Female Staff

/in /by

The Dorchester is certainly one of the most luxurious hotels in the UK, but no business should be powerful enough to dictate how female staff groom their bodies as the renowned hotel intends to do.

A list of the rules the business expects its female staff to abide by has caused a considerable backlash due to the excessive demand they involved. The content of the new regulations was leaked by staff of The Dorchester after they received an email from the hotel’s managers outlining the changes.

The five-star hotel claims the changes are justifiable as they are was researched in relation to recent customer complaints over the hygiene of staff members, but the nature of the demands is deeply unfair; with content including how women are not to report for work if they have ‘oily skin’, ‘bad breath’ or ‘garish makeup’. There are also suggestions that women manicure their fingernails, shave their legs and wear formal dresses.

A dress code policy is necessary for a business to ensure its desired image is projected, however, the extent of the detail requested by the Dorchester shows an objectification of female workers which could be considered discriminatory as it dictates a notion of what femininity is rather than it being an individual’s personal expression.

The dress codes involved can also be considered impractical for performing certain tasks, such as preventing a waitress’s ability to move comfortably while working.

There is also concern that other rules in the list such as removal of hair could encroach on religious freedom of expression which workers are entitled to. The rights of workers against discrimination is protected under the 2010 Equality Act, which supports employee ‘protected characteristics’, including age, sexuality, religion, gender and disability.

A requirement like a manicure is also an unfair obligation as the financial expense of the beauty products involved is not supported by The Dorchester. Any rule involving the use of beauty products should at least be provided to employees; especially as workers in the hospitality industry often struggle financially.

Furthermore, workers from certain ethnic background may find that following The Dorchester’s rules an issue due to their natural skin and hair types being unsuitable for the desired modifications. The rules appear to require female workers to conform to a westernised expectation of femininity.

The Dorchester’s grooming rules has already been criticised by several organisations. Chief executive of the Fawcett Society, Sam Smethers, believes ‘employers should concentrate on what enables people to do a good job and what drives productivity’ rather than their looks.

In an anonymous interview with the Daily Mail, a Dorchester worker stated the treatment of she and her colleagues is ‘like something out of the dark ages and downright offensive. It’s not as though you choose to have oily skin, and a lot of women, especially teenagers, cannot help it […] The women are all pretty livid but worry that if they complain or rebel they’ll be sacked on the spot.”

It also cannot be overlooked that the new rules are focused on female employees rather than male. Any new dress code or grooming policy should certainly apply to male employees where an equivalent can be made possible. However, no new rules have been suggested for men.

Roland Fasel, the Dorchester’s general manager, has spoken in defence of the new rules as an effort to ‘uphold world-leading hospitality standards, including grooming, in line with many other brands.’

Employee Claims Sex & Race Discrimination for Not Bowing to Her Employer

/in /by

The globally renowned Korean business Dongbu Daewoo Electronics has been taken to tribunal by a female employee who claims she was subjected to acts of sex and race discrimination.

Mrs Misook McDonald, who is representing herself at tribunal, was allegedly demoted from her job as a financial manager because she did not bow to her boss Mr Ho Seung Yoo, who is employed as chief financial officer.

Mrs McDonald claims she was called into the director’s office at the Berkshire branch of the electronics giant to be reprimanded by Mr Yoo for her ‘disrespect’ at not bowing to him at the beginning and end of each day. She was later demoted from her position as financial manager.

Mrs McDonald also claims that on another occasion she was told to prepare coffee for a number of guests despite this task not being part of her daily duties. When she refused Mr Yoo allegedly responded with the discriminatory question “Isn’t that what female workers should do?”

Both Mr Yoo and Dongbu Daewoo Electronics deny all allegations.

A case of this kind is of particular interest as there are elements of cultural contrast involved, specifically in regard to British and Korean attitudes. In the latter country bowing is generally considered an act of respect comparable to a handshake or verbal greeting, but such a gesture is not familiar to the British workplace.

Although Dongbu Daewoo Electronics is a Korean business, a form of greeting synonymous with the culture of that nation does is not required to translate to its offices in another nation, especially if the employees are not citizens of that nation. Mrs McDonald is of mixed race, with a Scottish father and Korean mother.

The tribunal heard that she was made to feel an outcast at the Berkshire offices and did not receive a warning prior to being demoted to position of administrator. Mrs McDonald stated at tribunal that she believes her employers felt they could behave this way because she is an Asian female:

“I know if I had been an older British white Caucasian male, Mr Yoo would have seen me very differently and would not dare to push me around so easily […] “I expressed that I felt discriminated just because I am viewed as a Korean female and younger, hence lower in status that I can be looked down upon and pushed aside”.

Her allegations of race discrimination are rooted in her assertion that she was demoted so another employee could take her place. She originally received a lot of praise from her employers as she was the only bilingual employee in the office; speaking both English and Korean. This changed when a Korean national with stronger language abilities was employed and she was given the lower admin role.

“I know he was glad to utilise me when I was the only bi-lingual person but when a better speaking Korean employee came along, I was not his preferred choice. I am also not considered ‘pure’ as my father is English.”

Mrs McDonald claims she did not bow to Mr Yoo because she wanted to avoid him and thus stop further harassment. The alleged discrimination eventually led Mrs McDonald to take leave from work due to stress.

She informed her managing director Mr Chong Park about what had happened, but a private investigation into the the matter did not find grounds to support her grievance. The mediator employed for the investigation stated there was “no reason to favour one account over another” since Mr Yoo denies all the allegations, claiming he was taken by surprise at the claims: “Mrs McDonald never complained about being called into my office whilst at work until she lodged her grievance.”

Mr Yoo also rejects any responsibility for sexist or racist behaviour. In regards to Mrs McDonald’s claim of discrimination for refusing to bow he said the following:

“Bowing is considered a custom in Korea but nobody in our UK office is required to bow. Some of our Korean staff choose to bow but as I say nobody must bow, it is entirely voluntary.”

Speaking at tribunal the company’s Managing Director, Mr Park, also denied that employees were expected to bow to their manager. However, he did claim that he initially had some concern at Mr Yoo’s conduct when the chief financial officer first came from South Korea to Berkshire to begin a four-year contract in 2015, stating that he wondered “is he normal or is he mental?” Such a reaction from Mr Park suggests there was either a degree of culture clash occurring, or that Mr Yoo’s conduct in the workplace has been at least been unconventional at times.

 

As branch director, Mr Park confirmed his support for Mr Yoo’s decision to implement a change of role for Mrs McDonald, claiming the alteration was largely in job title only and was due to a need to prevent redundancy across the office: “Mr Yoo designed the presentation which included the job chart to show the CEO and HQ that we had met their request. Nobody’s job role actually changed at that stage.”

Mr Yoo denies that Mrs McDonald was regularly given duties beneath her position, and says that his request for coffee was due to her past actions suggesting she would not object to it:

“When initially Mrs McDonald joined our company, every morning she brought me a cup of coffee or tea, every single morning. […] It was quite strange to me […] however, I just accepted it”.

He claims her generous attitude convinced him she would be comfortable performing a similar action for others and that he reluctantly requested this: “I asked her to make some coffee for my guests, I was really sorry for asking that of her at the time.”

The tribunal continues.

Should The UK Allow Payment for Whistleblowers? 

/in /by

The negative connotations attached to whistleblowing can have disastrous impact upon a worker’s career after they make their disclosure should no legal protection scheme exist for them. Many of these whistleblowers will faced with the possibility that potential future employers form a negative view of their character based on the decision to disclose an workplace grievance.

Some alterations have occurred in certain working sectors, such as those made earlier this year for child care workers, as well as those made for businesses that are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA). However, there are still crucial issues involving whistleblowing that are yet to be resolved

Beginning in September 2016 a series of new measures were introduced; most notable of which is a requirement for businesses to employ an employee who will act as a ‘whistleblowing champion’ to bear responsibility for encouraging and supporting staff members with work related grievances. This change in law also means that internal whistleblowing policies within businesses must also be put in place so that every disclosure receives the same treatment.

The British government spoke decisively about the need to establish ‘effective protections’ for whistleblowers at the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit. This included frank discussion about the reward systems used by the FCA and PRA. However, no revision of this kind was agreed upon.

One of the most interesting, and legally provocative, ideas put forward is the offer of financial rewards for whistleblowers. Such a model has been used extensively in the USA where whistleblowing actions are more frequent. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is a particularly prolific agency that has adopted a scheme of financial reward for whistleblowing.

Since its Whistleblower Programme was introduced in 2011, the SEC has spent over $100 million on rewards across 14,000 separate cases of whistleblowing from 95 countries worldwide.

Mary Jo White, Chair of the SEC, has spoken of the programme as “a game changer for the agency […].providing a source of valuable information to the SEC to further its mission of protecting investors, while providing whistleblowers with protections and financial rewards“.

These figures appear to show the scheme as a clear success for US government agencies and the individual whistleblowers concerned, so it’s no surprise that it has resulted in sharp debate as to whether Britain should adopt a similar programme. The Home Office recently discussed the potential benefits of such a change amid reports that the number of whistleblowing cases have already jumped in Britain, which some observers believe is a direct response to the possibility of gaining financial rewards began.

However, introducing a policy of this nature in Britain may be jumping the gun somewhat, as recent changes to employment law for the benefit of whistleblowers, such as employing champions and encouraging business transparency for workers, is yet to be fully explored. British and American employment differs considerably, as as such, there may not currently be a need to embrace financial rewards, especially as the promise of money may lead to many false claims being generated, which may ultimately reflect badly on both the whistleblower and the business concerned.

The Financial Conduct Authority promptly refuted the notion of money being a good means of encouragement in an analysis that concluded: “research shows introducing financial incentives for whistleblowers would be unlikely to increase the number or quality of the disclosures we receive.”